Bigotry In 12 Angry Men

Juror Ten harbours strong bias towards people of low socioeconomic status and wealth, because of this he becomes one of the most fervent attackers of the defendant. He openly discriminates throughout the duration of the play, and makes no effort to disguise his bigotry. While in the beginning his passion for “smack[ing] them down” is tolerated by a number of the other men, ultimately his bias and stubbornness causes the group to reject him and his ill-informed ideas. The Tenth Juror refers to the defendant as “a born liar”, “a common, ignorant slob”, “a danger” “real trash” and “violent… vicious [and] ignorant” amongst other things because of the place the boy was born. He separates people into two categories, “us” and “them”. While at one
As Rose points out, group dynamics are affected by a range of volatile and sensitive personalities. For example, the 3rd juror who is perhaps the most aggressive and confrontational, reveals that he is also personally affected by his relationship with his son. In the stage directions, the play states that when he reveals his personal issues he "breaks off. He has said more than he intended" and is "embarrassed". His aggression is suggested to be one consequence of his overriding sense of shame and disappointment. Juror Seven wants to leave the jury with a verdict as soon as possible so he can go to his baseball game. His impatience complements his selfish and childish personality. In Juxtaposition, the 8th juror has a positive impact on the group; he gradually earns their trust and support because of his considerate and calm personality. He is patient and has the courage to endure the aggressive and threatening tactics of some of the jurors such as the 3rd and the 10th. The private discussions in the lavatory also provide another opportunity for the jurors to test each other’s stance and influence each other's response. Although the members of the jury group are all white men, their backgrounds vary and bring different perspectives to the group. While the diversity and varied backgrounds seemed to contribute toward conflicting views, it also enriched the group with a broader perspective. To this extent, the diversity of the group helped make the group more effective in achieving its goal, however, the individuals did not demonstrate a sense of mutual accountability to each other as "it's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And no matter where you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth." Juror 3 often acted as if it was a competition and he wanted to win rather than lose. He was not open minded about