Racial Bias In The Play Twelve Angry Men

768 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: How does prejudice show in twelve angry men

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?

Racial Bias is a form of discrimination. Racial profiling targets certain groups based on one’s own opinion that some groups are more likely to commit certain crimes than others.

• Juror 10 is a bitter person who has openly showed his racism towards the sixteen-year-old defendant.
• In his world it’s them and us. Them is referred towards the defendant and the community he belongs to. (The defendants actual race was never …show more content…

For example
• What do you think a trial cost? He is lucky he got one. Know what I mean.(Pg.13)
• You can twist em any ways you like. Know what I mean?(Pg.51)
• That’s how they are by nature y’ know what I mean “violent” (Pg.63)

Class Bias

Class bias can be defined as discriminatory attitude based on distinction made between social or economic class.
• A person should be judged based on the facts of the case, not their social standing.
• Juror 4: Children from slum background are potential menace to society. (Pg.18)
• Juror 10: brother you can say that again. (Pg.18)
• 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)
• A sixteen-year-old is facing the death penalty if found guilty the juror’s brag about their occupation.
• Juror number four being a broker and juror number seven talks about how he made twenty-seven thousand selling marmalade.

Show More
Related

  • Comparing The Rodney King Trial And The Play Twelve Angry Men

    1369 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • 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

  • Prejudice in 12 Angry Men

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    ... 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.

    Read More

  • Intolerance And Prejudice In The Play Twelve Angry Men

    1285 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    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

  • Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men

    714 Words  | 2 Pages

    As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. At one point, he tells the other jurors about an argument between him and his son. Juror 3 and his son had an argument which made his son run away. When his son returned to apologize, Juror 3 hit him for leaving the first time thus leading him to run away once more. He has not seen his son in two years and this has left him somewhat bitter inside. His anger toward his supposed ungrateful son is projected toward the young man on trial. Juror 3 has no concern for the life of the defendant. He makes it clear that he would have been an executioner and would have pulled the switch on the boy himself. His personal troubles have imposed on his ability to come to a verdict.

    Read More

  • Racial Bias In Media Essay

    868 Words  | 2 Pages

    Racial bias is a preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons who possess common physical characteristics including, but not limited to color of skin, eyes, and/ or facial features. When turning on the news and glancing through the pages of a local newspaper, ethnic minorities are the central focus of crime stories and portrayed as the prime source of crime in our nation. However, many people within the legal system believe that racial bias in the media also affects the way that crimes are being prosecute and how suspects are being treat.

    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

  • 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

  • Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men

    617 Words  | 2 Pages

    Juror #3 is very biased against the 19-year-old boy that is being tried, and this affects all of his thoughts and actions regarding the case. He has this bias because his own son hit him in the jaw and ran away from home at the age of 15: “I’ve got a kid…when he was fifteen he hit me in the face…I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out [but it’s no use] (21).”According to this quote from the text, this juror condemns all teenagers and feels resentment towards them. He especially feels strongly about the boy being tried, because the boy grew up in the slums, and this juror is also biased against these people who grew up there. It is because of these feelings that he is strongly cemented in his vote of guilty.

    Read More

  • Prejudice In The Justice System

    1148 Words  | 3 Pages

    Prejudice is the unjustified negative attitudes or prejudgments that some people hold against others of certain groups (Gale, 2016). Prejudice makes its way into every aspect of our lives, and importantly, in the justice system. Generally, characteristics such as age, gender, or background are prejudiced against the most. It has several causes, such as family beliefs, religious customs, cultural traditions and most importantly, societal beliefs and experiences. Moreover, the issue of prejudice can easily be identified within the justice system. Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, clearly shows prejudice in within the justice system by the jurors towards a young, Hispanic male on trial for the murder of his father. In the novel Monster, by Walter

    Read More

  • Analytical Essay On 12 Angry Men

    639 Words  | 2 Pages

    For example, the third juror states in his monologue “Yeah, well I've got one. He's twenty. We did everything for that boy… When he was sixteen we had a battle. He hit me in the face. He's big, y'know. I haven't seen him in two years. Rotten kid.”(page 18) This quote alone proves that juror number eight

    Read More

  • Tulsa Race Riots

    1683 Words  | 4 Pages

    “The trial was brought to a speedy conclusion. Not only did Judge Evans find the twelve guilty, fine them $100 each, and committed them to jail, but five people in the courtroom who had served as witnesses for the defense arrested. […] The police were then instructed to transfer the seventeen prisoners that night to the county jail”(30).

    Read More

  • Race, Ethnicity, and Hate Crimes

    999 Words  | 2 Pages

    “Discrimination is the denial of opportunities and equal rights to individuals and groups because of prejudice or for other arbitrary reasons” (Schaefer 35). Discrimination differs from prejudice as it refers to the behavior or action usually based on prejudice rather than just thoughts.

    Read More

  • Use of Persuasive Argument in 12 Angry Men

    1024 Words  | 3 Pages

    ... 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.

    Read More

More about Racial Bias In The Play Twelve Angry Men

Open Document