During both stories, Twelve Angry Men and How To Kill A Mockingbird, it is evident that prejudice affects what people say, think, and do. Between both, they’re prejudices are very similar. Reginald Rose and Nelle Harper Lee’s works will both be compared in this essay to prove that prejudice clouds reasonable thoughts and makes people show anger against others.
Some people have short tempers, they get annoyed and angry easily. These people often get mad when they are offended. When this happens, they believe that violence is the easiest way to deal with their anger. Juror 3 is one of these people. He is openly prejudice during the whole story. Once he was told his thoughts were wrong and prejudice, he got frustrated. He didn’t think being prejudice was wrong. He got angry enough that he almost attacks Juror 8. Juror 5 also believes in act of violence will calm him. When other jurors are being prejudice against the poor he takes it personally. This causes him to slam his hand on the table in anger. Similarly to the jurors, citizens in the…show more content… In Twelve Angry Men, the jury took many hours to come to a verdict, even after they believed it would only take a few minutes. The jury all was set on the prejudice verdict, until it came to their attention that they were being very unfair. Their own verdicts started slowly changing, it took a little bit of time, but soon enough all of their votes changed. Comparable to How To Kill A Mockingbird, the jury on Tom Robinson’s trial took a very long time to decide the verdict. The jury all knew he was innocent, but it would be wrong in that time period to declare him innocent. The jury thought long and hard about this decision. They pondered on their prejudice, but then decided guilty. From this, we can conclude that once their discrimination is brought to their attention people tend to think about what they have done for a long
