Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Discrimination in 12 angry men
Discrimination in 12 angry men
Discrimination in 12 angry men
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Discrimination in 12 angry men
Everyone has different opinions when it come to the classes of society. Some of the lower class thinks badly of the upper class and some of the upper class thinks badly about the lower class. And there are some in different classes that respect people that aren’t in their class. Reginald Rose uses the theme of Reflection of American Society in 12 Angry Men to show what the higher class thought of the lower class. Juror Three is a man that will not be convinced that there could be some good in the lower class. Juror Seven just doesn’t care about the lower class. Juror Ten is a rude man that give the upper class a bad name. And Juror Eight is a man that thinks that every man deserves to have justice. Juror Three is a man that is completely stuck …show more content…
He is a man that only does things for his benefit. If he can use anyone or thing to help get him ahead he will. This man does not care about the trial, he only cares about his plans afterwards. Even though this is a trial with a boy who could possibly be sentenced to death, he still tries to rush everyone. And once everyone starts to vote “Not Guilty” he changes his vote because that way looks like he could leave quicker. All of this shows that he has absolutely no respect for the lower class. He may just not try to say anything about them because he just doesn’t care. But in this case, it’s better to make an argument than just agree with everyone else. Juror Seven is just a man in the upper class that only cares about himself and no one else. He is another great example of the upper class treating the lower class like …show more content…
The man is almost like Juror Seven but is almost worse. This can be seen at the very beginning of the play, he thinks that the boy was lucky to get a fair trial. He doesn’t think that the boy could afford it. And everytime he tries to make a point, he feels that he has to yell it so that the whole town can hear him. He even says in the play that he doesn’t want any part of the lower class. He even goes as far as to call the boy an “ignorant slob”. This shows that he wants to judge the boy before he even gets to know him. Every time that this man is wrong he always has to comeback with rude comment or a mean glare. This man clearly has no respect for people that are under him in
Juror Five came from the bottom and knows what it’s like. No matter how hard he tried he will always know the feeling of being on the bottom. and at some point he will always be reminded “I used to play in a backyard full of garbage, maybe it still smells on me”(7). Juror Five knows who he is and what he stands for. Now, how he would vote on the Rodney King case I can honestly say that, I don't really know.
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
Juror seven is a very average juror member that would like to be anywhere else but the room he is in at the moment. First, there is an ombre affect going on in the center of the shape because it is representing the character’s attitude throughout the movie. At the beginning of the movie, Juror seven made it extremely clear that he had better things
... 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.
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. First off, the settings in the movie are a great deal more fleshed out. In the play, the scene begins with the jurors regarding the judge's final statements concerning the case in the courtroom and then walking out into the jury room. In the movie, the audience is placed in the role of the invisible casual observer, who for perhaps the first 5 minutes of the movie, walks throughout the court building passing other court rooms, lawyers, defendants, security officers, elevators, etc.
Twelve Angry Men is a play that not only emphasizes the importance of the court system, but it also emphasizes the influence of individuality and characteristics that can affect the plot. Twelve Angry Men has a total of 12 different characters that all have their own unique traits and characteristics that change the flow of the story. Juror Five is one of the jurors that is often overlooked because of his quietness and timidness. As the story progresses, he overcomes the timidness and he gives his own personal remarks on the court case and he gives his own personal experiences. He is a static character because he never changes personality or traits during the skit.
In the play, 12 Angry Men, written by the well-known writer and producer, Reginald Rose, sets the scene in a stuffy jury room on an extremely hot day where 12 jurors must deem whether a boy is guilty for the murder of his father. The jurors struggle to reach a unanimous decision, as tension between the jurors builds up. The author delivers several clear messages through his play such as standing up for what you believe in, and always pursuing the truth. Often times personal feelings, prejudices, and fear of voicing opinions prevent the truth from being exposed.
In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.
Juror #10, a garage owner, segregates and divides the world stereotypically into ‘us’ and ‘them.’ ‘Us’ being people living around the rich or middle-class areas, and ‘them’ being people of a different race, or possessing a contrasting skin color, born and raised in the slums (poorer parts of town). It is because of this that he has a bias against the young man on trial, for the young man was born in the slums and was victim to domestic violence since the age of 5. Also, the boy is of a Hispanic descent and is of a different race than this juror, making him fall under the juror’s discriminatory description of a criminal. This is proven on when juror #10 rants: “They don’t need any real big reason to kill someone, either. You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone’s lying in the gutter… most of them, it’s like they have no feelings (59).
This is case, Juror #6 is overlooked by most of the men–he is dirty, not saying a word, and just a truck driver. Over half of the men do not think he is relevant. This changes the entire feel of the room–at least for Juror #6. Chills run up and down his spine because he is in a room full of white men–white men who seem to think they are better than him.
Their relationship also connects with the problem of prejudice in the context of seeking out justice. Interestingly, Juror 3 has little interest initially in Juror 10's suggestion of a hung jury because it does not appeal to his desire for vengeance against his own son. His personal prejudice runs so deep that eventually he would rather another jury get a fresh attempt to provide a guilty verdict. In this way, Juror 3 acknowledges that Juror 8's perspective is unusual. But it so enrages him that he does desire to kill and for a moment at the end of Act 1, Juror 3's anger against teenage boys transfers to Juror 8 threatening (ironically) to "kill
The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18-year-old boy for the first-degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony that was heard in court. The group went through the case over and over while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved. While the scorching hot weather conditions and personal affairs to tend to led the juror to make quick and rash decisions, one juror convinced them the fate of the 18 year old was more important than everyone’s problems an convinced them that they could not be sure he was guilty. Juror three took the most convincing. After fighting till he
Especially in the start when juror#9, the old man votes non guilty in order to extent his support for the protagonist, juror#8. He did that because he felt that juror#8 was the only one standing against the decision and if pitches in, the jury might face it difficult to convince two people, therefore will start looking at the evidences more deeply and clearly. The protagonist influenced every single person in the jury one after the other with his logical capability. He was consistent with his thought of discussing the evidences so that justice is given to the boy. He corners few people in the jury with his logical ability, so that the statements about the case which the jury believed as facts, goes haywire. He as a single person had minority influence in many occasions in the
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.
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.