It is expected that prejudice-based feelings are suppressed by jurors. Many people struggle to ignore their negative feelings towards others. This can lead people to make incorrect assumptions or even impulsive guilty verdicts. Prejudice is evident in 12 angry jurors. False arguments based on ethnicity or age can result. This essay will present four instances of prejudice in Twelve Angry Men. These examples illustrate how prejudice can interfere with the pursuit of justice. This first example illustrates the impact of personal experience on your perception of a situation. How relying solely on your past experiences can lead to misunderstandings of facts and assumptions. Juror 3 said, in act 1, page 14, “That man is dangerously dangerous.” You could see him. He is presuming that a killer has to ‘look’ certain ways, and he is prejudiced against anyone who looks like him. He adds: “They sent her to reform school for stabbing someone.” This is his prejudice against the young man defendant. He has to be burned. We won’t let him go. He got into a fight, his son punched and ran away. On page 18, he admits that he has one. He’s twenty. He’s twenty-five. We had a struggle when he reached sixteen. He punched me in face. He’s big, y’ know. He hasn’t been seen in over two years. His prejudice further explains why he views all young men as “rotten kid.” Juror 3 doesn’t see the young boy at trial as his brother. This makes it difficult for him to see the truth of the case and not be angry about his son.
Act One shows us that jurors are judged on their appearances, sounds, and how much money they make. Juror Three remarking on Juror Four’s appearance, “Ask him for his services.” He’s rich. Take a look at this suit!
Juror 7 also displays a form of prejudice. Juror7 completely disregards the facts and doesn’t care about any case. As long as he gets to the ball game, he is either an ethnocentric or racist. Further, we discover that he is ethnocentric as well as a bit racist for insulting Juror 11, an immigrant. Juror 11 gets furious and claims he can’t play with this man’s life. Juror 7 responds to Juror 11 by claiming that he is a better American citizen. Juror 7 had arguments with Juror 11, mostly because juror 7 made unnecessary comments.
Prejudice is present in Twelve angry men. Some of the subtlety makes it difficult to see. The majority of jurors are predisposed to prejudice. But there is always the chance that any juror might have some sort of prejudice. Prejudice can result in incorrect assumptions and impulsive guilty judgments, which could then see innocent persons sent to prison or the chair.