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 get 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 shows how personal experiences can change your viewpoint in a situation. How basing it on past experience may blur distinctions between facts or assumptions. Juror 3 said, in Act 1, Page 14, “That man is an ominous killer.” He could see it. This is his predisposition against anyone who looks like the defendant. He adds: ‘They sent her to reform school for stabbing someone. He thinks this is a sign of his prejudice towards the young man defendant. He has to be burned. We won’t let him go. He got into an argument with his son, punching him and running away. On page 18, he admits that he has one. He’s twenty. He’s twenty-five. We had a war when he turned sixteen. He punched me in my 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 son. This makes it difficult for him to see the whole case and not just his anger.
Act One shows us that jurors are judged on their appearances, sounds, and how much money they make. Juror Three, referring to Juror Four, says: “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 is open to letting the innocent man die, or letting the guilty man go free so long as it gets him to the game. Further, we discover that he is ethnocentric as well as a bit racist for insulting Juror 11, an immigrant. Juror 11 becomes furious when he votes ‘Not Guilty’ after he’s had enough and attacks him with his words. Juror 7 speaks out against Juror 11 and claims that he’s a superior American citizen. Juror 7 had arguments with Juror 11 due to juror 7. Their unfounded comments, mainly about juror 11, were the main reason.
Prejudice is present in Twelve angry men. Some of the subtlety makes it difficult to see. While prejudice is most evident in jurors 3-7 and 10, it’s possible that all jurors have some form of prejudice. It could be ethnic prejudice or self-experience. Prejudice can result in incorrect assumptions or impulsive guilty judgments, which could then see innocent persons sent to jail and the electric chair.
