Characters with widely different personalities and beliefs create a number of diverse and tense relationships among characters in the play 12 Angry Men written by Reginald Rose. Some may argue that bringing past prejudices into a case where a man's life is at stake is unwise; however, this is inevitable. Each person has different morals and knowledge, as well as bigotry and prejudice, this provides for heated and opinionated debates. Would you really want a jury of people of only the same background? Having different people makes others question their own opinions and ultimately makes everyone deliberate for quite some time until a final verdict is reached. One prime demonstration of this is seen between jurors eight, two, and three. They
…show more content…
One of his very first lines is, “I’ve never seen a guiltiter man in my life,” (12 Angry Men) when expressing his initial opinion of the defendant. It seems like he’s intent on sending this man off to die without even giving the case so much as a second glance, and at first it appears he might very well get his way. Luckily, eight sweeps in to try and reason with three and again save the day. While juror eight’s argument is based mostly on facts, juror three’s argument seems to be built on stereotypes and prejudices. Even after hearing evidence upon evidence about why the defendant is innocent, three stubbornly doesn’t budge. Until finally it’s revealed why. “It’s the kids...they don’t listen. I’ve got a kid. When he was fifteen he hit me in the face. Haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids!” juror three eventually admits. In other words, three is taking his anger about his relationship issues with his son out on the defendant. This is an example of a juror bringing past emotions and prejudices into the courtroom, much like juror two. Three’s frequent bursts of anger and lashing out at other jurors is represented in diagram one by a thick, pointy, dark red line that borders his prickly and sharp figure. His figure was the largest due to his explosive personality that can affect a whole room. Inside the shape, the diagram shows red to represent anger and bitterness. The blue oval represents that three’s anger comes from sadness. This is best shown at the end of the play when three rips up a picture of his son into pieces in anger. Then later he breaks down on the floor, crying out “Not guilty.” Deep down three knew that the defendant was not guilty, but his anger and sadness towards his son drove him to want to see the boy punished, even if it was for a crime he never actually
One of his very first lines is, “I’ve never seen a guiltiter man in my life,” (12 Angry Men) when expressing his initial opinion of the defendant. It seems like he’s intent on sending this man off to die without even giving the case so much as a second glance, and at first it appears he might very well get his way. Luckily, eight sweeps in to try and reason with three and again save the day. While juror eight’s argument is based mostly on facts, juror three’s argument seems to be built on stereotypes and prejudices. Even after hearing evidence upon evidence about why the defendant is innocent, three stubbornly doesn’t budge. Until finally it’s revealed why. “It’s the kids...they don’t listen. I’ve got a kid. When he was fifteen he hit me in the face. Haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids!” juror three eventually admits. In other words, three is taking his anger about his relationship issues with his son out on the defendant. This is an example of a juror bringing past emotions and prejudices into the courtroom, much like juror two. Three’s frequent bursts of anger and lashing out at other jurors is represented in diagram one by a thick, pointy, dark red line that borders his prickly and sharp figure. His figure was the largest due to his explosive personality that can affect a whole room. Inside the shape, the diagram shows red to represent anger and bitterness. The blue oval represents that three’s anger comes from sadness. This is best shown at the end of the play when three rips up a picture of his son into pieces in anger. Then later he breaks down on the floor, crying out “Not guilty.” Deep down three knew that the defendant was not guilty, but his anger and sadness towards his son drove him to want to see the boy punished, even if it was for a crime he never actually