12 Angry Men Prejudice Essay Essay

What is Justice? Justice is a concept of moral payeousness based on ethics rationality, law, religion or fairness, as thoroughly as taking into account the inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all flock and individuals to equal protection before the law of their gracious rights, without discrimination. Justice is one of the great concerns of humankind. It is something for which people over centuries have been free to struggle and even die.Examples of Justice are novels 12 Angry hands and The Green Mile. 2 Angry men is a novel scripted by Reginald Rose in 1955. The story takes place in 1957 in the jury- room of a New York Court of Law. It is about a young deserted who is on trial for the murder of his aggressive farther. Eleven jurors are order by the judge to gather on a hot good afternoon to declare if there is any reasonable doubt as to wherefore the male child is not inculpatory. One, even though far from convinced of the male childs innocenc e, feels that some of the evidence against him is am big(a)uous. By the end of the day that juror has reversed opinions of all eleven jurors.Prejudice There are galore(postnominal) significant views and values that Reginald Rose demonstrates in 12 Angry Men the near important one being that prejudice constantly affects the integrity and peoples judgement. As the jurors argue between themselves as to whether a young boy is guilty of stabbing his father it is shown that Its very hard to trammel personal prejudice out of a thing like this. This is most evident in the way juror 3 and juror 10 come to their decision that the young man is guilty as they loan in there prejudice against young people and people from the slums to make believe their judgement without considering the facts of the slip.Rose uses juror 8 who can see the full trial because he is calm, reasonable and brings no prejudice as a prime example of what a juror is supposed to be like. juryman 10 is the character who brings in the most prejudice to the jury room as he has formed his decision from the moment he cut the young boy and sees no reason for him to waste any quantify debating on whether the defendant is guilty. His prejudice comes from the fact he used to recognise in the slums and consider people like the defendant to be trash.This is completed when he states you cant believe a word they pronouncethey act different they dont need any big excuse to kill someone. Juror 10 never really considers the facts of the case only using them as a pretext to vote guilty and to leave early. When he found it too difficult to change peoples opinions he simply gave up and voted not guilty. I couldnt care less. This shows just how little he cared for the defendants life and the jury system unlike juror 3 who deep cared about the jury system and the case.