The Prejudices In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men

The Prejudices of 12 Angry Men

Everyone has biases even in a place where there should never be bias like for say a courtroom with a human beings life on the line. In the play “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, 12 jurors argue about whether this kid killed his father or not, all of them say the boy is guilty except for one juror. This was a very interesting play the arguing, the suspense, the facts about the crime slowly unfolding and puzzle pieces coming together but what prompted the 11 of 12 men to insist without a doubt in their mind that the boy was guilty maybe it was the little facts and evidence given in the trial or maybe it was their own experiences and biases the lead them to that decision.

First, Juror#3 a strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man within whom can be detected a streak of sadism. A humorless man who is intolerant of opinions other than his own and accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others. In my opinion Juror#3 was the most bias of all the jurors for 3 reasons: His own experiences with his father, his issues with his son, and his stubborn personality. Juror#3 seems to

A man who sees all sides of of every question and constantly seeks the truth. A man of strength tempered with compassion. Above all, a man who wants justice to be done and will fight to see that it is. Juror#8 has many different characteristics but they are all different from the other jurors they are more positive attributes rather than negative. Juror#8 is very open-minded, calm, and empathetic, he is the reason that poor kid wasn’t executed he looked into the case and question everything even if it wasn’t worth questioning. He tries to see all sides of the story the main cause of him wanting to help the kid was because he thought what would i want someone to do for me if i was in the kids shoes. When the jury room got a little loud and aggressive Juror#8 was able to calm and bring peace to the other