Prejudice In 12 Angry Men

The story of "12 Angry Men" takes place entirely in one room. Placing twelve strangers on a hot day in a room with failed air-conditioning sets up the main story line: these men must unanimously agree on the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of murdering his father. The evidence all points to the boy's guilt but the playwright's use of setting provides a framework for the exploration of prejudice. The various other aspects of the play work together to demonstrate powerfully that prejudice unchecked can prevent the higher ideals of civic responsibility and justice.

The opening of the play is quite slow; however, the heat of the day and the small bare room create tension immediately. The men of the jury speak to each other of issues unrelated to the case, though Juror 3 expresses irritation about the way that "lawyers can talk and talk even when the case is as obvious as this one." Juror 2 observes that they're "entitled" and while Juror 3 agrees in the principle of a "fair trial" he says that "I think we'd be better off if we took these tough kids and slapped them down before ( Rose's italics) they make trouble." Juror 2 is provided with no reply and it is soon apparent why: most

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