Discrimination Exposed In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

604 Words2 Pages

Twelve Angry Men, by Emmy Award winning author Reginald Rose, is a play set in the 19th century, were twelve opinionated and impatient jurors are forced to decide whether a nineteen year old boy is guilty of murdering his father. These men must get over various obstacles that block them from the truth. In writing this play, Mr. Reginald Rose gives us a clear message- we must never be blinded by personal prejudice or racial bias. Jurors Eight, Three, and Ten can fully prove that. Juror Eight was to first to fully overcome any bias and really look at the entire case with perspective. While all the other jurors voted guilty purely because the boy was raised in a slum and was Puerto Rican, Juror Eight was determined to work out the entire truth. He was willing to go against eleven other men, who were not only grumpy but quite violent, to look at the facts and compare them with other evidence. “It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first (Pg 315),” says Juror Eight when asked why he voted not …show more content…

When Juror Three’s son ran away, he thought that he himself wasn't to blame; rather, it was his own son’s fault. He believes, from personal experience, that children take their parents for granted and that they are not to be trusted under any circumstances. Juror Three also holds strongly a belief that people who are Puerto Rican or another similar race are fit to be ruthless and cold-blooded killers. “You come in here with your heart bleeding all over the floor about slum kids and injustice… and you've got some soft- hearted old ladies listening to you… This kid is guilty! He’s got to burn!” Juror Three exclaims when some of the other jurors start to show a reasonable doubt regarding who murdered the defendant’s father. Juror Three was a man who could never see the truth clearly because of his own

Show More
Related

  • Uncertainty In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    980 Words  | 2 Pages

    Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three

    Read More

  • My Verdict of Twelve Angry Men

    704 Words  | 2 Pages

    On Friday, April 18, I attended the Henderson State University production of Twelve Angry Men. Reginald Rose wrote the playwright of Twelve Angry Men and Sherman L. Sergel had it adapted. The performance took place in the Arkansas Hall Studio Theatre on Henderson State campus. Fortunately, I had the opportunity of watching the Good Friday performance of this play and it did everything but disappoint. I didn’t know much about this playwright before entering the theater other than it took place in a jury room and was set in the 1950’s. The message of this play was an important one, which would not be easily forgotten.

    Read More

  • A Courtroom Comparison

    1239 Words  | 3 Pages

    To begin, parallel and conflicting characteristics can be realized by exploring the judges of the two cases. Judge Horton and Judge Taylor both presided over the cases. Judge Horton was the second of three judges in the Scottsboro cases, and Judge Taylor was the fictional judge in To Kill a Mockingbird. The two both exhibited undeniable sympathy to the defendants in the cases. Judge Horton sympathizes with the nine Scottsboro boys by declaring, “You are not trying whether or not the defendant is white or black … you are trying whether or not this defendant forcibly ravished a woman” (People and Events). It is obvious that Judge Horton was unprejudiced and believed the boys should be treated with equality. This attitude is akin to the one of Judge Taylor; Taylor assigned Atticus Finch, a notable lawyer, to the case of the fictional black character Tom Robinson. Maxwell Green, an inexperience rookie, should have been assigned the case; however due to Taylor’s empathy, Tom obtained a decent lawyer who would do h...

    Read More

  • Racial Bias In The Play Twelve Angry Men

    768 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror 8: According to juror 8 the defendants poor up bring could be a reason for his criminal record. He says _You know--------- living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. He spent a hear an a half in orphanage while his father served in jail term for forgery, That’s not a very good start” (Pg.13)

    Read More

  • Compare and Contrast Play and Movie Versions of 12 Angry Men

    1039 Words  | 3 Pages

    This essay will compare and contrast the protagonist/antagonist's relationship with each other and the other jurors in the play and in the movie versions of Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men. There aren't any changes made to the key part of the story but yet the minor changes made in making the movie adaptation produce a different picture than what one imagines when reading the drama in the form of a play.

    Read More

  • Stereotypes In The Play '12 Angry Men' By Reginald Rose

    911 Words  | 2 Pages

    Prejudices cause peoples’ perceptions to be altered. The jurors are presented quite a bit about the boy’s background, and his records. Juror Ten struggles to see past the stereotypes and judges the boy based on his past actions. Juror Ten claims,” He’s a common ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English,” (326). What is so ironic about this statement is that Ten claims the boy is dense and bases this claim on the fact that he can’t speak English well. However as corrected by Eleven, it is “doesn’t” not “does”. Perhaps the boy learned from his mistakes and sought to change. That is what life is all about. We fall down and hopefully learn from our mistakes so that we can create a better future for ourselves. Juror Ten is firmly set on the idea that the court covered everything by repeatedly saying, “They proved it,’’ on page 317. Unlike Eight he is not open-minded. As a juror it is important to be skeptics because the in court, lawyers may have presented information in such a way that information is perceived differently. Also crucial information may have not have been analyzed carefully. It’s important not to dwell on the past; its also keep prejudices from exposing you to

    Read More

  • Civic Responsibility In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

    531 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror 6 seems to be part of one of the characters’ whose intentions exhibit otherwise. He proclaims vociferously, “It’s pretty obvious, I mean, I was convinced from the first day”. This sentiment provides compelling evidence as to what the Juror’s intentions and perspectives were, towards the alleged sixteen-year-old. In addition, an important factor that can be taken into consideration is the factor of civic responsibility, which he didn’t uphold properly. In fact, it was proved to have biased, prejudiced and pre-conceptualised

    Read More

  • The Rodney King Trial

    1331 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the play Twelve Angry Men, a boy is on trial for supposedly murdering his father after a night of arguing. Rodney King, twenty-five, was beaten by four caucasian Los Angeles Police Department officers on March 3, 1991 (CNN Wire 1). On this day, King was pulled over for exceeding the speed limit while intoxicated (Kaplan 1). The jury of both of these cases played a major role in the verdict of each case. In the play Twelve Angry Men, the twelve men that make up the jury are faced with a difficult decision to make; deciding whether or not a nineteen year old boy was guilty of murder. Fast forwarding forty-three years later, twelve jurors were given the Rodney King case in which they had to decide the fate of the four Los Angeles officers that brutally beat Rodney King, an African-American citizen. Being a member of the jury on the Rodney King case must have been a difficult task given the evidence surrounding the trial.

    Read More

  • Comparing and Contrasting Juror 3 and Juror 8 from Twelve Angry Men

    1056 Words  | 3 Pages

    These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men

    1373 Words  | 3 Pages

    The movie, 12 Angry Men is about twelve white men deciding the jail sentence of an 18-year old boy who has allegedly committed murder by stabbing his father. The men must decide if the boy is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt awaiting a death sentence by electric chair. The first scene of the movie is the jurors waling into one room and Juror number 1(foreman) is seen leader of the deliberation. He tells the jurors to gather around a table and explains that the goal of the deliberation is to vote on the sentence of a boy’s guiltiness and innocence. After no deliberation at first, everyone quickly unanimously votes guilty. Everyone except one juror; who explains the reason why he couldn’t cast his vote guilty was because he couldn’t decide such

    Read More

  • What Are The Similarities Between To Kill A Mockingbird And 12 Angry Men

    846 Words  | 2 Pages

    Harper Lee’s novel, “To Kill a Mockingbird”, depicts a strong sense of morality and justice through the courageous character, Atticus Finch, who desires to defend an innocent black man charged with rape in a racist atmosphere. The concept of justice is also explored in Twelve Angry Men through Henry Fonda, or Juror 8, who decides not to jump to conclusions and attempted to defend a young boy charged with first-degree murder. As a product of both these character’s dedication to their job, they gave the accused a slight “ray of hope”.

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Persuasive Essay

    445 Words  | 1 Pages

    I do not think the third juror is a sadist. He just wants this whole thing to be over, and he is siding with the bigger side, so if the life of the kid goes into a vote, he can be on the winning side. The eight juror is still stuck up about no one but the fifth and eleventh juror joining his

    Read More

  • 12 Angry Men Comparison

    507 Words  | 2 Pages

    The jury room is very important because many cases are discussed and solved, which helps the judge come to a final decision. All twelve jurors are chosen to help decide a young man's innocence, evidence gathered strengthens and builds whether he's guilty or not. Juror eight is related to Nick Easter in many ways. The movie focuses on Nick Easter’s life and how he manipulates the juror’s decision by feeding information to outside sources.

    Read More

  • The Role Of Justice In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

    1441 Words  | 3 Pages

    Yet, the justice system is inevitably susceptible to a flaw, as personal prejudices slip through the initial screening and become apparent in the jury room. In Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men the jury systems imperfections are addressed. He demonstrates the atmosphere of the jury room by introducing twelve characters with unique personalities. A particular character I believe to stand out from the rest would be juror ten. Upon first glance, he comes across as a bigot, but as the play continues he exhibits he is also impatient, arrogant, cantankerous and several other traits.

    Read More

  • The Importance Of The Criminal Justice System In Twelve Angry Men

    1091 Words  | 3 Pages

    Twelve Angry Men brings up a few issues the criminal justice system has. The jury selection is where issue number one arises. “A jury of one’s peer’s acts as an important check in cases where a defendant fears that the local justice system may have a prejudice against him, or in corruption cases in which the judiciary itself may be implicated” (Ryan). Deciding one 's future or even fate, in this case, is no easy task, as depicted by the 8th juror.

    Read More

More about Discrimination Exposed In Twelve Angry Men, By Reginald Rose

Open Document