Bias in Twelve Angry Men (film)
Essay Preview: Bias in Twelve Angry Men (film)
Report this essay
Its very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth. [Juror 8, page 53] Perhaps this best sums up the basis of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose. This play is about a young delinquent on trial for the murder of his abusive father. The jury must find him guilty if there is no reasonable doubt, and in turn, sentence him to death. I dont envy your job. You are faced with a grave responsibility. [Judge, page 1]
Peoples bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that the jurors personal prejudices come out and we the readers/viewers are able to see how this has influenced and shaped what they think.
There are many examples of this. Juror 3 is perhaps the most prejudiced of all the jurors, fighting every argument that didnt go his way and refusing to accept that the accused may be innocent. His own reasons for this are a prodigal son, who punched him in the face and he hasnt seen in two years. Things come to a head when he goes into a tirade after the other 11 jurors have voted not guilty. The phrase was “Im gonna kill you.” Thats what he said. To his own father. I dont care what kind of man that was. It was his father. That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What theyre like. What they do to you. How they kill you every day. My God, dont you see? How come Im the only one who sees? Jeez, I can feel that knife goin in. [Juror 3, page 59]
Also heavily biased, Juror 10 is a racist bigot, intolerant and accusative.
I dont understand you people! I mean all these picky little points you keep bringing up. They dont mean nothin. You saw this kid just like I did. Youre not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! Its born in them! I mean what the heck? I dont even have to tell you. They dont know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they dont need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir! [Juror 10, page 51] This type of prejudice offended many of the other jurors, especially Juror 5 who is of similar race to the accused.
However, it isnt just the jurors own personal prejudice that affects the way they vote. The prosecution of the boy led the jurors to believe that he was a guilty beyond all doubt. Also, the boys representation was uninterested and uncaring. I kept putting myself in the boys place. I would have asked for another lawyer, I think. I mean, if I was on trial for my life Id want my lawyer to tear the prosecution witnesses to shreds, or at least to try. [Juror 8, page 14]
This case was one of truth and justice. It becomes evident when the Juror 9 says to Juror 10. Do you think you have a monopoly on truth? [Juror 9, page 8] The fact is, nobody really knows what the truth is, and at the end of the play, still nobody does. The boy may have been guilty, but as Juror 8 pointed out, who were they to make that assumption? Most of the Jurors had taken for granted that what the prosecution had told them was the truth. Through much discussion the Jurors realised that this may not have been the