Prejudice In Reginald Rose's 'Twelve Angry Men'

Dominic Mulso Mrs. Kapsner English 10, 2nd hour 1 November 2024 TITLE “Prejudice is a form of untruthfulness, and untruthfulness is an insidious form of injustice,” the famed theologian Miroslav Volf once said. This idea is thoroughly explained and brought to life in Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men. After a man was killed by his son, it was up to the judgment of 12 men to decide if the boy was guilty, or not guilty. Only one of the men stood up for the boy's potential innocence, which caused a big struggle between them all. Some jurors were clouded with their own prejudices; therefore, they couldn’t see the truth well enough to make an unbiased decision. First, the reader sees prejudice when one of the jurors tells a story about his young
The way they are–you know? They don’t listen to me. I’ve got a kid. When he was fifteen, he hit me in the face. He’s big, you know. I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid!’ ” (Rose 6). This shows how Juror Number THREE assumes that no young kids ever listen to their parents. This shows how, just because of a bad experience with his own son, he judges the defendant solely based on his age. Next, the reader sees prejudice when one of the jurors starts making assumptions about the defendant purely based on the color of his skin. Juror Number TEN explains how the jurors can’t trust the defendant because of his race. “ ‘You’re going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe him, knowing what he is. I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe the words they say. You know that’ ” (Rose 4-5). This shows how this juror is under the impression that the defendant is lying only because he isn’t white. Society tends to make assumptions based on the race of a person, not on the actual facts which are presented in front of them; This is especially true in the play. Finally, the reader sees prejudice when the jurors talk about the past of the boy. Juror Number SEVEN explains the defendant's criminal past to the