Prejudice And Bias In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

A fundamental aspect of the American justice system is the right of every person accused of a crime, to a trial by jury. The defendant, presumed ‘innocent until proven guilty’, has the right to be judged by a group of his or her peers based on the evidence presented, the assumption being that the defendant will be judged in a fair and impartial manner. However, human beings are fallible and can be subject to faulty reasoning, alongside irrational and biased thinking. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose is set in a mid twentieth century American jury room. Twelve strangers, all male, are brought together to deliberate the facts of a seemingly straightforward case, a young man accused of murdering his father; their decision, which must be unanimous, will either take, or save a young mans life. This essay will …show more content…
The most obvious form of prejudice is racial prejudice, however, on a wider scale certain jurors showed their prejudice in the form of preconceived notions and irrational ideas. Gilovich asserts that the tendency is “for people’s preconceptions to bias their interpretations of what they see”. (1993.p15) Although the ethnic background of the defendant is never revealed, the reader is led to believe he is from a minority background. Juror ten is the most obvious example of someone who is racially prejudiced; he is immediately against the defendant because he is “one of them” and makes frequent references to “those people” he subsequently argues with juror five, also an inhabitant of the slums in an attempt to defend his statement that the boys slum background proves that he is “trash”. Similarly, juror three has prejudice against the defendant as this boy reminds him of his estranged sons perceived ingratitude and he rails against every argument that does not support what he already believes because “that’s how kids are nowadays”, although this is only revealed as the play