Instant Access To 100,000+ Essays!

In “12 Angry Men”, a play written by Reginald Rose, there is a disagreement of the jurors, about a teenager who is accused of murdering his father. All the evidence seemed like the kid really did kill his father. In the jury room, 11 jurors said that he was guilty, but one thought he was not guilty. In the beginning of the trial, most of the jurors were against the boy just because of he came from the slums, and it was assumed that slum children were potential criminals. All the evidence such as the knife that he bought, the hole in his pocket, the hole in his father's chest, and where he was at the time of the crime was against him. Juror 3 kept saying that he was guilty, and that he was the person that killed his father. Juror 3 was mainly doing this because he was prejudiced against the boy, by the way he looks and his background. He's doing this because he had a son himself, and his son turned on him. That's what led to his assumptions. The witnesses and evidence also gave him more confidence that his assumptions are right.