Analysis of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men :: Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose

Guilty or not guilty? This the key apparent movement during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience cardinal members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority balloting of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juryman 3, juror 10, and juror 11. Their past experiences and personal solidus determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.Juror 3 is precise biased against the 19-year-old boy that is creation tried, and this affects all of his thoughts and actions regarding the case. He has this bias because his admit son hit him in the jaw and ran away from home at the age of 15 Ive got a kidwhen he was 15 he hit me in the faceI havent seen him in three years. Rotten kid I hate toughie kids You work your heart out but its no use (21).According to this commendation from the text, this juror condemns all teenagers and feels resentment towards them. He especially feels strongly active the boy being tried, because the boy grew up in the slums, and this juror is in any case biased against these people who grew up there. It is because of these feelings that he is strongly cemented in his vote of guilty.Juror 10, a garage owner, segregates and divides the world stereotypically into us and them. Us being people living around the rich or middle-class areas, and them being people of a different race, or possessing a contrasting climb color, born and raised in the slums (poorer parts of town). It is because of this that he has a bias against the young man on trial, for the young man was born in the slums and was victim to domestic violence since the age of 5. Also, the boy is of a Latino descent and is of a different race than this juror, making him fall at a lower place the jurors discriminatory description of a criminal. This is proven on when juror 10 rants They dont need any corporeal big reason to kill someone, either. You know, they get drunk, and bang, someones untruth in the gutter most of them, its like they have no feelings (59).