Prejudice In Twelve Angry Men

As part of the Due Process, the fifth amendment of the United States constitution states, “No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. This ensures that no one is given a fair and impartial trial. Due Process is central to the plot of “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose. In the story 12 jury members are faced with the murder trial of a young man, accused of killing his father. One of the purposes of the play is to expose the prejudices that are brought into the courtroom by a jury. In the 1997 the defendant is portrayed as a Latino man. It is revealed that he lives in the slums of New York. Many racial and socioeconomic prejudices that play into the jurors’ verdicts. Juror #10 often refers to the defendant as “one of them”, saying that to “them” …show more content…
His reasoning for voting “not guilty” is because as a jury they owe it to the defendant to discuss the case and not assume his guilt. This sentiment pushes the other jurors to defend their point of views and challenges the preconceived notions they had of the defendant because of his race and socioeconomic status. The prejudices that are brought into the courtroom causes the “burden of proof” to fall onto the defense. By assuming guilt, The jury does not give a fair and impartial trial to the defendant. Not guilty is the same as innocent. In “Twelve Angry Men” they eventually find the defendant “not guilty”. It is important to note that a verdict of “not guilty” is simply stating that the jury is not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. In the story of Twelve Angry Men, Juror #8 installs a reasonable doubt into the minds of the other eleven jurors by questioning the evidence and challenging the preconceived notion of the defendant. Eventually, as the jurors question the validity of the evidence and reliability of the witnesses they arrive at a verdict of “not

Show More