They judge each other based on how they look, what they say, how much money they have or make, or even based on the prejudices they reveal during deliberations. In contrast, Juror 2 is new to the juror and hence very happy and excited about the case. As the jurors leave, Juror 8 helps the distraught Juror 3 with his coat. For example, 4th states: The boy. Which characters base their decisions on prejudice? It is about a young delinquent who is on trial for the murder of his aggressive farther. Most obviously, the play shows how the prejudices of the jurors affect their actions in the jury room.
In both the Rodney King Beating Trial and the play Twelve Angry Men, racism played a major part in the original verdict. Juror 2 questions the likelihood that the accused, who was almost a foot shorter than his father, could have inflicted the downward stab wound found in the body. The play asks that if you are brought into a jury room, you respect the process and treat it and those at stake with the dignity deserved. Eight: I don't want to change your mind. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.
The film begins in a New York City courthouse, where an 18-year-old boy from a slum is on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant man who has been nothing all his life, who has never had recognition—his name in the newspapers. The role and relationship between George and Lennie soon surfaces as they near the river and Lennie begins to get a drink. A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict a finding of fact on a question officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment Wikipedia. This makes it a debated idea and one that can be argued on both sides. Only three minutes take place that are not set in the jury room. Twelve: And you're trying to tell us he lied about a thing like this just so that he could be important? I'm saying it's possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife.
That's a very sad thing, to be nothing. In To Kill a Mockingbird there is mostly just the word of witnesses for evidence. Many times it may be difficult for a jury to come to such a significant conclusion. The characters are a cross-section of professions, classes, ages, and immigrant status, whose differences inform how… As a play portraying the deliberations of a jury in a murder trial, Twelve Angry Men is naturally concerned with the idea of justice. If there is any , they are to return a verdict of not guilty. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's sure.
You know why slum kids get that way? People can't change their backgrounds like where they grew up. It doesn't mean we're going to kill someone. He suggests equality as a standard for justice. It also showed that the law is about all about right and wrong. Juror 10 had several outbursts and had a heinous attitude through most of the movie. The movie showed how juror number 8 persuasively got the other jurors to review each fact logically, which led to an unanimous not guilty decision. But what confronts us with a choice, and puts us in front of the doubt whether everything is always clear as twice two, then the problem would not exist.
Rather, it is to an empty stage, giving the effect that the monologue is not as much for the Jurors as it is for the audience themselves. When confederates, someone who is only pretending to be a participant, would start choosing the wrong line, the participants would often go along with them, conforming to group pressure, and also choosing the wrong line. The jurors that maintained arguments based on stereotypes alienated themselves from the others. It is a victory for the defendant, who is now acquitted, and who we now believe to be possibly! This becomes increasingly apparent over the course of the speech. Prejudice and Stereotypes in 12 Angry Men Essay Stereotypes use generalisations to characterise people, and 10th juror is particularly prone to stereotyping the defendant based on socio-economic background. Once again, by aligning the less simplistic attitude with 8th juror, Twelve Angry Men endorses compassion and condemns prejudice and stereotyping.
The story demonstrates how sociological biases impact the way with which people perceive information. However, one juror stands firm and says that they should at least give him an hour. The judge states, if there is a reasonable doubt you must bring me a verdict of not guilty and further says that it must be unanimous and the penalty is death. The personality of juror 10 was one of hatefulness and anger. Juror 3 is still persistent and stubborn to believe the truth that is being set in front of him solely because of his anger and hatred towards teens. We don't owe the kid a thing. This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father.
They do not believe women are victims. There is a jury of twelve men, that is locked in a room to debate if the young boy is innocent or not. This production is Helen Hayes Awards Recommended©. At first, Juror Eight was the only member of the jury to state that the boy was not guilty. Juror 3 talks about the simplicity of the case and the obvious guilt of the defendant as soon as he enters the jury room.
Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society. He couldn't have been able to hear the murder taking place. Juror 8 reminds the rest that personal prejudice can cloud judgments as they retake their seats. After time he began to get the jurors to start bring in facts of world reason to how it was impossible for the witnesses to have seen the person commit the murder. Reginald Rose surely doesn't ask society to acquit every defendant, or even to acquit just the poor ones. Then throughout the movie, all of the jurors were slowly convinced that the boy was no guilty. When they're from a bad area, people like juror 3 will judge them based on this.
He loses his temper easily and flies off the handle when Juror 8 and other jurors disagree with his opinions. We did everything for that boy, and what happened? A man like this needs to be recognized, to be listened to, to be quoted just once. In this case, 12 men form part of a jury in a murder trial. This makes him look past all the evidence built against the claim that he is guilty. Throughout the juries dilleration, one man exhibits all of the qualities of leadership.