Prejudice and Stereotyping
Twelve Angry Men shows that prejudice can be a dangerous thing. When they first enter the jury-room, many jurors are ready to convict the defendant, not just on the evidence and arguments presented by the prosecution but, frighteningly, because the boy is a member of a social group for whom the jury hold no respect, for whom the stereotypes are of hopeless lives and criminal behaviours. As 4th puts it, ‘slums are breeding grounds for criminals’ (p.12) and 10th adds, ‘the kids who crawl outa those places are real trash’ (p.12).
While there may be statistical or subjective justifications for some of these opinions, there is little evidence to show that the opinions explain this particular murder. Certainly the defendant grew up in underprivileged conditions and 7th does give us details of the boy’s criminal history (p.11), but this background is not sufficient proof that he committed the murder. 11th puts forward a strong argument supporting this point when the debate turns to psychiatric evidence stating that ‘the boy had strong homicidal tendencies’ (p.46). 11th responds: ‘we should remember that many of us are capable of committing murder. But few of us do’ (p.47). As with the class stereotypes, it is important to remember that a particular tendency does not equate to evidence of any particular behaviour.
Rose’s theme here is that keeping an open mind, instead of holding firm to pre-formed and often generalised opinions, is important. Twelve Angry Men shows that we all have our own particular biases, and that they can be dangerous: as 8th says, ‘no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth’ (p.53). The play suggests that it is important to be aware of such obstacles to truth, to try to avoid them where possible and at the very least acknowledge them.
By aligning the most prejudiced attitudes with the less sympathetic characters in the play (including 10th and 3rd) and by making sure that 8th – a character with whom we are encouraged to empathise – tries to avoid prejudice, Rose endorses the notion that prejudice is not a desirable or useful trait.
• Apart from socio-economic status, on the basis of what other variables do jurors stereotype people?
One would hope that all people consider other human beings as equal to themselves and don’t make assumptions based on race or socio-economic background. We would also hope that jurors would give every person the same careful consideration, no matter where they come from. Rose goes out of his way to highlight that some men are unable to put aside their personal beliefs, even when they have sworn an oath to do so. Prejudice in the play is personified by Jurors 3 and 10. Juror 3’sprejudice stems from his troubled relationship with his own son. He views the defendant through his blinkered misconceptions about young men. Juror 10represents those who are prejudiced against people from differing ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. This prejudice reaches its peak during his hyperbolic tirade against ‘these people’. To him, this trial is a chance to get rid of one of ‘them’ by finding the defendant ‘guilty’, even at the expense of a fair trial. Rose has deliberately provided several jurors who test the preconceived notions of the other jurors: Juror 5 is from the slums, Juror 9 is elderly and Juror 11 is a European migrant who has sought refuge from persecution in America. Students should also remember that one of the ironies of the play is that the jury consists of twelve white men.
• Juror 10 is prejudiced against anyone from the slums: ‘You can’t believe a word they say. I mean they’re born liars’.
(p.13) ‘They are different. They think different. They act different’. (p.64) ‘He’s a common, ignorant slob. He don’teven speak good English’. (p.37) He is unable to make a fair judgement about individual guilt.
• Juror 4 also stereotypes those who live in poor socio-economic areas: ‘Slums are a breeding ground for criminals’. (p.18)
• Juror 11 responds with ‘This sensitivity I understand’ when Juror 10 offends Juror 5 with his denigration of those who live in slums. Juror 11 has had to face prejudice himself. (p.18)
• Juror 7 later offends these sensitivities when he speaks angrily of Juror 11: ‘I’mtellin’ ya they’re all alike’. (p.55)
• Juror 8 knows that prejudice endangers the process of a fair trial: ‘It’s very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth’. (p.66)
• Juror 9 is also able to view the defendant fairly: ‘I don’t think the kind of boy he is has anything to do with it’. (p.51)
• Ageism is seen in respect to the old man who testifies. Juror 3 says: ‘He’s an old man … Half the time he was confused. How could he be positive about anything?’ (p.43) Rose gives Juror 9 an excellent memory, eyesight and observational skills to show that age isn’t always an issue.
• Juror 3 stereotypes young men: ‘The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it’. (p.11) ‘That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they’re like’. (p.72)
The background of the young man (an unidentified minority, raise in a slum. The suppositions a) slums are breeding grounds for criminals” and b) children raised in them are “potential menaces to society” (p.18). Bigoted stereotypes and generalisations conflict with reason, logic, objectivity and common sense – all of which must triumph over prejudice if democracy is to thrive.
Rose, in this play, reveals the true impact of prejudice and racism and its power to subvert the very systems meant to guarantee liberty and the “pursuit of happiness” for all. Egalitarianism is easily voided in the hands of humanity.
Prejudice is the most evident theme in the play. Three characters openly state their prejudice against the accused boy because of his background. The 3rd Juror is prejudiced against him because of the antagonism between himself and his own son: “I think we’d be better off if we took these tough kids and slapped ‘em down before they make trouble, you know?” The 10th Juror believes, “These people are born to lie. Now, it’s the way they are and no intelligent man is gonna tell me otherwise. They don’t know what the truth is…They are different. They act different.” The 4th Juror has similar beliefs to the 10th Juror: “This boy, let’s say he’s a product of a filthy neighbourhood and a broken home. We can’t help that. We’re here to decide whether he’s guilty or innocent of murder…He was born in a slum. Slums are breeding grounds for criminals…Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society…” While a number of other Jurors don’t say it, the 4th Juror’s prejudice is a pervasive one. The 7th Juror prejudges the boy because of his record: “Look at his record. He was in children’s court….” Reginald Rose shows us through this theme the difficulty there can be in obtaining objective justice.
Class & Status:
The Jurors in this play represent a cross section of society. The 8th Juror is an architect, the 7th Juror a salesman, the 11th Juror a watchmaker, the 12th Juror an ad man. The 4th Juror is a broker, the 10th Juror a mechanic. Some are young, some are old. Not only do the characters have different jobs, they also come from different social backgrounds. We can hear this in the way they speak. The 3rd Juror and the 10th Juror speak very colloquially, the 8th Juror and the 4th Juror don’t. The backgrounds they come from influence the values the Jurors apply to this case and the way they feel about each other. The 10th Juror resents the intellectualism of the 8th Juror. The people he has convinced of reasonable doubt are “goddam geniuses” and “smart bastards” who have been “bulldozed by bunch’a what d’ya call ‘em – intellectuals.” The inference here is not necessarily that the 10th Juror is stupid (though the 9th Juror does say of the 10th that “It suddenly occurs to me that you must be an ignorant man”) and the 8th Juror smart, but that education can create a class division and that those without an education can become suspicious of those that do because intellectualism can be used to manipulate people. The 10th Juror is not convinced by the testimony of “phoney psycho whatever-you-call-it-stuff” (i.e the psychiatrist’s report) but by the instinctive believe in class. The boy must have done it because of his social background.