Social Inequality and Unfairness in Twelve Angry Men Literature Essay Example

Acts of social inequality and unfairness are seen every day throughout American society. These types of injustices often relate to someone’s race or ethnicity. In some instances, they may be related to where someone has grown up or their likes and dislikes. These actions can prevail through derogatory language directed toward certain individuals. In the play Twelve Angry Men, twelve jurors are in charge of deciding the verdict for a kid being charged for killing his father. In Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, social inequality and unfairness are portrayed through characters' dialogue in jurors three, seven, and ten.

To start, the 3rd juror targets individuals by placing them into stereotypes based on their emotions to make a clear judgment on what type of person they are. The 3rd juror begins to stereotype the kid accused by saying, “It’s the kids, the way they are nowadays. Angry! Hostile! You can’t do a damn thing with them. Just the way they talk to you. Listen, when I was his age I used to call my father “Sir.” That’s right, “Sir!” You ever hear a boy call his father that anymore?” (Rose 26). The 3rd juror’s opinion is that the majority of kids these days do things out of anger or aggression. He is making the assumption that since kids these days have been known to perform acts of aggression that the kid being accused does too. He is putting the accused kid in the aggression stereotype without any rhyme or reason. This shows social inequality because the 3rd juror is using the aggression stereotype to try and prove that the kid is guilty. The way the 3rd juror is using this information is unfair because it may not be true to the kid being accused. The 3rd juror also stereotypes one of the witnesses by saying, “He’s an old man. You saw him. Half the time he was confused. How could he be positive about anything?” (Rose 51). In this quote, the 3rd juror is saying the things the witness was saying can’t be true because he is an old man. As people get older they begin to forget things and judge things very definitely. The 3rd juror believes that since the witness is an old man, that he can't tell time accurately and that not everything he says is going to be completely right. This shows inequality because the 3rd juror is trying to make it seem like the man cannot be trusted and the rest of the jurors shouldn’t take what he says into consideration. This is unfair to the witness because now all the jurors are questioning if they can use his testimony when deciding if the kid accused is guilty or not. The 3rd juror is stereotyping the old man to make the jurors believe that he is too old to make an accurate measure of time. Finally, the 3rd juror stereotypes the 5th juror based on his decision to change the votes through the line, “Brother, you’re really something! You come in here and you vote guilty like everybody else, and then this golden-voiced preacher over here starts to tear your heart out with stories about a poor little kid who just couldn’t help becoming a murderer. So you change your vote. If that isn’t the most sickening” (Rose 35). In this quote, the 3rd juror is belittling the 5th juror for changing his vote based on the “nonsense” that the 8th juror had said. The 3rd juror believed that the 5th juror was soft and showed sympathy towards the kid being accused because of the thoughts that the 8th juror put in his head. The ballot was also closed voting so no one knew who changed their vote. This shows inequality because the 3rd juror is accusing the 5th juror of something that he might not even have done. It is also unfair because the 3rd juror makes it seem like the only reason the 5th juror changed his vote to not guilty was because of sympathy for the kid. However, the vote being changed could have been from facts revolving around the case and what events occurred, not just because the kid was young and they didn’t want to ruin his life by saying he was guilty.

Additionally, the 7th juror unfairly belittled the other jurors involved in the case based on their personal beliefs. Earlier in the play, the 5th juror and the 7th juror were talking about the baseball teams that they liked and the 5th juror had said Milwaukee. The 7th juror proceeded to make fun of him because at the time Milwaukee wasn't a successful team. As the play goes on the 5th juror switches sides to not guilty and begins to make statements about the case. The 7th juror does not accept the statements that he makes and says, “And the Milwaukee rooter is heard from” (Rose 50). Since the 7th juror doesn't like Milwaukee, he is being rude to the 5th juror because he likes that team. This shows inequality towards the 5th juror because he is being discriminated against based on the team he likes. It is unfair to the 5th juror because the 7th juror is embarrassing him throughout the case and calling him names just because he likes a certain team. In comparison to the 5th juror, the 7th juror also judged the 11th juror based on his past. One characteristic about the 11th juror is that he is an immigrant that moved to America. In the courtroom, the 11th juror stands up against the 7th juror. As the 11th juror is revolting, the 7th juror becomes very frustrated. The 7th juror specifically demoralizes the 11th juror by saying “He comes over to this country running for his life and before he can even take a big breath he’s telling us how to run the show. The arrogance of the guy!” (Rose 64). The 7th juror believes that since he is white and grew up in America that he is superior to the 11th juror. The 7th juror is demoralizing the 11th juror just because he is an immigrant. This is unfair to the 11th juror because he had earned the right to live in the country and should not be penalized for where he came from.

Furthermore, the 10th juror is constantly saying the kid being accused is guilty based on his race and where he lives. The 10th juror starts by associating the kid's race with his actions in the line, “Now, you’re not going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I’ve lived among ’em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. I mean, they’re born liars” (Rose 22). In this line, the 10th juror is saying that Puerto Ricans are dishonest and not trustworthy. Since the kid in the case is Puerto Rican, the 10th juror is placing the kid in this stereotype. He is saying that the kid cannot be trusted just because of his race. This shows inequality because the accused kid may have been telling the truth, but the 10th juror is going to deny everything he says just because of his race. This is unfair to the kid because he is doing everything he can to try and prove that he is not guilty, but the 10th juror is deciding on the verdict which is based on his biased opinion of Puerto Ricans. Another instance where the 10th juror relates the accused kid’s race to the case is in the quote, “They are different. They think different. They act different. Well, for instance, they don’t need any big excuse to kill someone” (Rose 72). The 10th juror is constantly referring to Puerto Rican people as different. He presumes that based on their history, it wouldn't be unlikely for one of them to try and kill someone. The 10th juror is saying that it wouldn't be abnormal for the kid to try and kill his father because other people of his race have done the same thing. This shows inequality because the kid is once again being accused of something based on his race. Not everyone that is of the same race acts the same way, but the 10th juror is making it seem like he is just like the rest of them. This is once again unfair to the kid because his race does not define his personal actions. The 10th juror is making it seem as if the kids' race influences his actions. Also, the 10th juror associates where the accused kid lives with his actions by saying, “The kids who crawl outa those places are real trash. I don’t want any part of them, I’m telling you” (Rose 26). The 10th juror is saying that the part of town where the kid grew up, also known as the “slums”, produces trashy kids. These kids tend to be poor and lack basic necessities. Since the kid accused grew up in this part of town, the 10th juror is convinced that he is trashy like the rest of them. His comments show inequality because the accused kid may not resemble the rest of the people in his town. With that being said, the 10th juror is trying to convince the other jurors that he is trash based on where he lives, even though that is not always the case. It is unfair to the kid because the trashy stereotype only adds to the list of reasons why he should be charged as guilty. There was nothing the kid could do about where he lived, so it is unfair that the 10th juror has to pin this against him.

In Twelve Angry Men, it is evident that Reginald Rose uses character dialogue to express today's ongoing conflict of social inequality and unfairness. Rose’s usage of dialogue portraying discrimination and stereotypes is directed at many different characters throughout the play. While these acts represent a major influence in society today, one may also conclude that social inequality and unfairness based on race, ethnicity, and characteristics is an ongoing problem.