12 Angry Men Prejudice Essay Essay

What is arbitrator? Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics rationality, law, religion or fairness, as well as taking into account the inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all pack and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination. Justice is oneness of the great concerns of humankind. It is roughlything for which people over centuries have been willing to struggle and nonwithstanding die.Examples of Justice are novels 12 Angry Men and The Green Mile. 2 Angry Men is a novel written by Reginald go up in 1955. The story takes place in 1957 in the control panel-room of a impertinent York Court of Law. It is about a young delinquent who is on runnel for the murder of his aggressive farther. Eleven jurors are directed by the guess to gather on a hot afternoon to declare if on that point is any reasonable doubt as to why the boy is not guilty. One, even though far from convinced of the boy s innocence, feels that some of the evidence against him is ambiguous. By the end of the day that juror has reversed opinions of all eleven jurors.Prejudice There are many signifi so-and-sot views and determine that Reginald rosaceous demonstrates in 12 Angry Men the most all-important(prenominal) one being that outrage constantly affects the truth and peoples judgement. As the jurors palisade between themselves as to whether a young boy is guilty of raw his father it is shown that Its very hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. This is most evident in the way juror 3 and juror 10 come to their conclusiveness that the young man is guilty as they bring in there prejudice against young people and people from the slums to make their judgement without sum uping the facts of the case.Rose uses juror 8 who can see the whole trial because he is calm, reasonable and brings no prejudice as a prime slighton of what a juror is supposed to be like. Juror 10 is the case who brings in the most prejudice to the dialog box room as he has formed his decision from the moment he saw the young boy and sees no reason for him to waste any time debating on whether the suspect is guilty. His prejudice comes from the fact he used to live in the slums and consider people like the defendant to be trash.This is established when he states you cant believe a word they saythey act incompatible they dont need any big excuse to defeat someone. Juror 10 never really considers the facts of the case only utilise 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 deeply cared about the jury system and the case.