The Holocaust is similar to 12 Angry Men, a play written by Reginald Rose, as in both situations people are unjust to others based on their ethnicity and race. In the Holocaust, Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses and many other groups were discriminated against due to their race and ethnicity. Similarly, in 12 Angry Men, a Puerto Rican boy is discriminated against due to his race and the stereotypes associated along with it. In the book, Juror 4 says, “He [the Hispanic defendant] was born in a slum. Slums are breeding grounds for criminals. I know it. So do you. It’s no secret. Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society” (Rose, 18). Juror 4 is basing his opinion based off the stereotypes that he has heard about Hispanics; he is not looking at the evidence to determine whether the boy is guilty or not, but using rumors to make his decision on a person’s life. …show more content…
People base their opinions and actions off of rumors and tales that they have heard, they do not realize that their actions can affect the life of another person tremendously. In 12 Angry Men, many jurors do not realize the reality of the fact that their opinion to convict the boy of the murder would result in the boy losing his life. Just as the Nazis did not directly realize that their belief in Germany’s propaganda would result in the death of six million innocent people. Juror 10, blinded by stereotypes says, “Now you’re not going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I’ve lived among ‘em my whole life. You can’t believe a word they
The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast the American Slavery and the Holocaust, in terms of which one was more malevolent than the other. Research indicates that “the “competition” between African-American and Jews has served to trivialize the malevolence which both has suffered” (Newton, 1999). According to L. Thomas “A separate issue that contributes to the tension between blacks and Jews refer to to the role that Jews played in the American Slave trade.”
In the very start of 12 Angry Men the judge states, “If there is reasonable doubt in your mind as to the guilt of the accused… then you must declare him not guilty. If, however, there is no reasonable doubt, then he must be found guilty.” (Rose 312). Many of the men do not follow this requirement by being stubborn and by not wanted to listen to other opinions. Another time reasonable doubt was present, and some jurors decided not to listen, was about the knife used to kill the father. Many of the jurors were convinced that the cashier was telling the truth about only having one knife, but Juror Eight proves them wrong by showing the exact same knife sold at the same store. Juror Eight proves there is reasonable doubt by doing this, but many of the men refuse to believe it. Reasonable doubt was present so many times in the play, yet many of the men chose not to listen to all of the
... I've lived among them all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars.” In this statement you can clearly tell his prejudice against the kid, just because of where he was raised. Juror # 10 and juror # 3 has prejudice against the kid. Juror # 3 has personal experience with a kid like the accused. “Reminded of his own family's personal crisis, Juror # 3 tells the jurors of his own disrespectful, teen aged boy who hit him on the jaw when he was 16. Now 22 years old, the boy hasn't been seen for two years, and the juror is embittered: "Kids! Ya work your heart out."” This is a direct example of juror # 3’s prejudice against the accused. When prejudice was in effect in the movie, it clouded the judgments of the jurors that were prejudice against the boy just because he was raised in the slums.
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
In the play Twelve Angry men the theme of Bias is very strong. The vote is 11 to 1 in a murder trial of a 16-year-old boy charged with stabbing and killing his father. Without any discussion eleven jurors presumed the defendant is guilty. Did the defendant’s racial bias, class bias, confirmation bias, play a role in their decision?
The Holocaust was one of the biggest genocides that killed nearly 11 million innocent people. Even after the effects of the Holocaust people thought that there will never be another genocide again, but there are still many around the world today. Such as the genocide in Cambodia, that cost the lives of nearly 2 million people. Khmer Rouge, just like Hitler, orchestrated this mass murder of people. Both leaders had a vision in their minds to make their nation only a certain race of people. In Germany, they only wanted Aryan people, while in Cambodia, they only want Agrarian people. Both these genocides used fear, to make it possible. For example, in both countries if you questioned the government or helped people hide, you would be killed. Both Cambodia and Germany had a vision in their mind to make their nation a utopia, with perfect citizens, but what they didn’t realize was that they were doing the opposite. Learning about both genocides teaches many people that it’s okay to be different and we shouldn’t punish people because of it. What both of these nations didn’t see by doing this is that they lost
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
The word “Holocaust”, was originated from the words “Holos” meaning whole, and “kaustos” meaning burned. To Adolf Hitler, Jews were an “inferior” race. After years of Nazi rule, Hitler’s “final solution” came under the cover of world war, with mass killing centers constructed in the concentration camps. Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roma Gypsies, Priests and Pastors, homosexuals, and black children were all victims of the holocaust. Most of the victims left were from other countries. 6,000 Jehovah's witnesses, over 15,00 homosexuals, 400 “colored” children, and over 5,000,000 jews were killed.
However, in Twelve Angry Men, Juror Eight defies prejudices in his own beliefs, and eventually in the final verdict. When the eleven jurors are asking the Eighth Juror why he voted “not guilty”, he responds with “It’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here. I mean, we can’t decide in five minutes. Suppose we’re wrong?” (12). Even if the Eighth Juror may think that the boy might have actually killed his father, doesn’t mean he did just because the boy grew up in the slums and is a tough kid. No matter where the boy is from or what he looks like, his life is on the line. Thus, don’t jump to conclusions too quickly. Later on, when the jurors are talking about the knife that the boy had, Juror Eight was “saying it’s possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife.” (22). Just because a violent boy who grew up in a violent family had a knife, doesn’t necessarily mean he is guilty of murder. Thus, things may not always be the way they seem, so don’t judge a book by its
Millions upon millions of people were killed in the holocaust, that is just one of many genocides. There are many similarities between different genocides. Throughout history, many aggressors have started and attempted genocides and violence on the basis of someone being the "other".
In 12 Angry Men, the main theme deals with justice and prejudice as well. In the beginning of the book we learn that a young man was accused for the first degree murder of his father and that the fate of his life was in the jurors hands. Throughout the play, there are two clashing views of justice from Juror number 8 and the rest of the jury, as they eventually come together, we see a perspective of justice that is in favor of the accused boy and that wants him to have a fair trial. “...Look, this boy's been kicked around all his life. You know - living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. He spent a year and a half in an orphanage while his father served a jail term for forgery. That's not a very good head start. He had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him
The impairment to equality that prejudice presents society with is absolute. The play by Reginald Rose Twelve Angry Men and Harper Lee’s novel To Kill a Mockingbird whilst both face the danger of prejudice, the outcomes ultimately contrast each other. To Kill a Mockingbird depicts the unjust killing of an African-American man, on the other hand, Twelve Angry Men highlights a discussion between a jury where justice prevails in the end. In both texts, the jury exemplify biased opinions which sporadically end in violence. However, the most dangerous part of prejudice is the blatant ignorance that society hinder to diminish, leaving an unjust mark on those targeted.
576). In 12 Angry Men, the jury that is voting is a death-qualified jury and all but one wants to convict. They are more prejudiced towards this Hispanic boy who could very well be innocent. In Young’s (2004) study, he proved that death-qualified juries were more likely to have prejudiced views of minorities that they are more willing to convict. In this study, he took a poll that resulted in the death-qualified juries saying that it is worse to let the guilty go free than to convict an innocent person. In both the film and Young’s (2004) study, it is shown that death-qualified juries are very quick to convict when they have someone’s life in their
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.
Many racial and ethnic groups are treated cruel, which contributes to the problem of discrimination. The inhumane treatment inflicted onto different racial and ethnic groups is provoking horrific violence around the world. The film The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, gives us an insight to the cruel treatment endured by Jewish people in World War II. Jewish people were taken from their homes, separated from their families, and placed in concentration camps where they were expected to die. They were exposed to extreme levels of abuse, such as starvation, physical beatings, and emotional torture. The fear and terrorizing the soldiers used on the Jews is shown in the scene when Lieutenant Kotler catches Shmuel eating a cookie: “Are you eating? Have you been stealing food?