Twelve Angry Men Character Analysis Paragraph In Reginald Rose's 1950s play Twelve Angry Men, Juror 10's discriminatory remarks about people who grew up in slums represent prejudice in America and its negative impact on the justice system. The audience is first clued in on Juror 10's prejudice when he's discussing the murder and he says, "Well it's the element. They let the kids run wild. Maybe it serves em' right" (Rose 13). At first, the audience isn't fully sure what Ten is referring to when he says "the element". It is most likely he's talking about a group of people as Juror 4 responds to him, saying that Juror 10 should use actual evidence that isn't "some emotion you may have - perhaps a dislike for some group" (Rose 13). The story has just barely begun and it's already showing the audience how Juror 10 doesn't …show more content…
This is important because his emotions could cloud his judgment on this case and cause him to possibly send an innocent man to death. Similar to prejudiced people in real life, Juror 10 didn't immediately state his beliefs outright, but instead, did so in a small subtle comment that could be easily missed by others. Near the end of the story, Juror 10 drops all pretenses of hiding his prejudices when he goes on a tirade about people from the slum, saying that they "don't know what the truth is", that "human don't mean as much to them as it does to us", and that "There's not a one of 'em who's any good" (Rose 59). This shows just how deep Juror 10's distrust of this group of people goes. He is unable to even fathom that a single person who
One way that Juror 10 helped the other jurors reach a unanimous decision is when Juror 8 is talking about how the kid doesn’t have a good life, Juror 10 says, “‘I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say.’” This shows that Juror 10 is biased towards people in the slums, and thinks they can’t be trusted. The other jurors don’t like what he’s saying. Juror 9 thinks it is very dangerous to be saying that, and thinks he’s wrong.
He is shown to be incredibly stubborn and particularly spiteful towards the defendant, who belongs to a family of a low social status. "You can't believe a word they say. I mean, they're born liars". This quote shows how the 10th Juror's reliance on common stereotypes can easily cloud his judgement, fully believing that he is a much more superior human. He also detests those who do not share a similar point of view or understanding with him, particularly towards the 8th Juror, which highlights his stubbornness and his close-minded attitude towards different ideas and viewpoints.
Since Juror 10 is fairly outspoken, he outwardly speaks his biassed opinions, which intimidates some jurors, preventing them from speaking up. For example, when it is Juror 5’s turn to speak, he says, “I’ll pass it” (Rose 16). Later on in the play, it reveals that he chose to pass as he did not want to share his opinion because he is also from the slums. This makes him afraid to be judged, due to the prejudices and stereotypes. Since Juror 5 fears to be judged, this shows that
Having had some bad experience with the poor and the people in slums, he believes them all to be the same thing: lying, cheating, and dangerous. Of course, as stereotypes often are, this is not always correct and keeps him from being able to hear other people’s point of view on the case and makes him less likely to give the boy the benefit of the doubt. His beliefs are obvious in his speech during act three, when he says: “Look, you know how those people lie… and lemme tell you, they don’t need amy real big reason to kill anyone either… that’s how they are… there’s not one of ‘em who’s any good.” Juror number ten honestly believes that the people from slums and from worst neighborhoods, by virtue of their very nature, are violent and without any chance of redemption. There is no question that this would affect the way that he would view a young man accused of murder from these poorer neighborhoods.
In a testament to both his own stubbornness and loyalty to the guilty cause, Juror #10 rebuffs every argument made by the not guilty party. Equally important, Juror #3 is willfully obtuse to the revelations made by the other jurors, marking him as the twelfth and final juror to vote not guilty. In the end, it takes the other men demanding his line of thinking for him to finally declare “not guilty” (Rose 115). Juror #3, being the main antagonist, is stuck in his pessimistic mindset and refuses to change his decision regarding the defendant’s fate. At times, it’s clear he is blowing off rationale for the sake of maintaining his guilty verdict.
Well, it’s the element. They let the kids run wild. Maybe it serves ‘em right’” (13). As Juror ten says “they” in this quote it means the boys color or religion, so when he explains that “they” let the kids run wild, he means the parents of the boy as part of this community.
In the court system, jurors are tasked with the duty to conduct a fair verdict based on the testimony given and additional evidence shown. Some may forget this responsibility and use their prejudices that affect the juror's decision on the defendant's future. As a result, the accused may be falsely convicted and lose the majority of their life. The play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose shows three perfect examples of prejudices during jury duty such as colorism, classism, and ageism.
This bias shown causes Juror Four to possibly hold his guilty opinion for longer than reasonable. This statement would also cause Juror Five to become agitated
Over the course of the book, we see how the jurors get agitated, specifically towards juror eight, who believes that the boy is not guilty, going against the views of the rest of the juror. Many of the jurors are extremely biased and are true to their views. He realizes how precarious his position is but he still decides to continue fighting. Juror eight is
Additionally, age prejudice is also a factor in the play. Juror 8, who is the youngest of the jurors, is often dismissed by the older jurors due to his age and perceived lack of experience. This prejudice is seen in the way the older jurors condescendingly dismiss his ideas and opinions, and in their refusal to take him seriously. These prejudices shape the jurors' decision-making process and contribute to the deliberation being more difficult and contentious than it would have been otherwise. For instance, Juror 10's racist views prevent him from considering the defendant's innocence and lead him to dismiss evidence that supports the defendant's case.
His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors.
Throughout the play, the jurors are faced with the temptation to conform to the opinions of others, particularly the dominant figure of Juror 8. However, Juror 8's determination to consider all the evidence before
It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt. When the first ballot is taken, 10 of his fellow jurors agree that defendant is guilty while there is only one Juror had different view that defendant is innocent. Juror No. 10 begins a racist rant. As he continues, one juror
With selfish attitudes like this, it was unlikely that Juror 10 would be interested in the truth behind the evidence and the case itself. Hence, his racial prejudice was important in determining his vote. He believes the boy is guilty, not because the facts point to it, but because of the boy’s ethnicity. It is clear that Rose has constructed Juror 10 as a means of identifying that prejudice,
This process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background. . Another interesting aspect of this 1957 film is the “reverse prejudice” portrayed by juror