In the Jury System, Justice is Best Served without Personal Prejudice and Bias
Thomas Pluta
English 1010 – Section 072
Dr. Sally Asbell
July 10, 2011

Is our jury system influenced by the personal prejudices and bias of its jurors? Sidney
Lumet’s 1957 film “Twelve Angry Men” is a look at the twelve members of a jury in a murder trial who deliberate on the fate of a young teenage boy accused of 1 st
degree murder. The jurors in this movie “are literally locked into a small, claustrophobic rectangular jury room on a stifling hot summer day until they come up with a unanimous decision, either guilty or not guilty” (Dirks
1). The film explores human nature and how the personal traits of these twelve jurors, such as prejudice and bias, have the possibility of influencing their decisions, and in this case the outcome of the verdict. Our jurors in this movie are faced with what appears to be overwhelming evidence against the defendant. Will their own personal prejudices, bias and feelings toward the defendant, coupled with the crushing evidence presented in this movie, seal the fate of this boy and send him to the electric chair, or can the jurors put aside their differences, and look at the evidence objectively and open minded, and render an impartial verdict “Twelve
Angry Men,” is an example of how our judgment can be clouded and skewed as a result of our own prejudices, outlooks and backgrounds. As deliberations begin in this movie we will look at whether or not the jurors are influenced by their own personal prejudices and bias. In order to consider this view we will need to examine some of the personal attitudes among of the characters and determine whether such mind-sets will affect the outcome of the verdict. Upon consideration of the various viewpoints and differences among the jurors in this movie, we will see if justice can be applied fairly when all the facts are looked at objectively.
As the jurors head to the jury room to begin deliberations we realize the jurors are all white males around middle age. The reality of an all white, all male jury even in the 1950’s was very rare. After revealing the identity of the jury at the onset of the movie, Mr. Lumet gives us a glimpse of the young boy on trial for murder, he appears to be Hispanic and perhaps unlearned

and underprivileged. Also noteworthy is the instructions given to the jurors by the judge before they exit into the jury room. The judge makes a point to emphasize to the jurors that the case involves a capital offense, with death being the consequence of a guilty verdict. This is significant because jurors in capital trials tend to be more biased than in other types of trials. An article appearing in USA today in 2001 entitled “Death Qualifications” Leads to Biased Juries states that capital offense jurors tend to be biased towards defendants.“Numerous academic studies show that those who survive the death qualification process are not only biased towards sentencing convicted defendants to death as opposed to life in prison, but biased towards convicting the accused as well. People who have no qualms about imposing the death penalty tend to favor the prosecution, whether the crime is shoplifting, drunk driving or murder” (Conrad
20). With the presence of an all white jury, a minority defendant and a capital murder trial, it would seem that Mr. Lumet is signaling to viewers that the makings for personal prejudice and bias towards this young boy are perhaps in the works, as deliberations unfold among the jurors.
It’s conceivable that Mr. Lumet wants us to believe that surely there was going to be some bias towards this young man, even before the jurors began their deliberations!
As the jurors settled into the tight, crapped, poorly ventilated jury room their preconceived prejudices and judgments become more apparent. To them the case was cut and dry, the evidence is overpowering and the boy is obviously guilty. Mr. Lumet shows us right away that the jurors are prejudiced and bias against the boy even before a vote is taken. This is evident when Juror #
3 casually mentions to Juror # 2 his belief that the case is "open-and-shut" against the youngster - and he reveals his hidden biases: "If you ask me, I'd slap those tough kids down before they start any trouble" (Dirks 2). The case for bias is further helped when juror #10 brings to light his biases by stating “It's pretty tough to figure, isn't it? A kid kills his father. Bing! Just like

that...It's the element...I'm telling ya, they let those kids run wild up there. Well, maybe it serves
'em right” (Dirks 2), it’s clear that the personal feelings of the jurors are blurring their objectivity. There are other instances where we see prejudices and bias right away, “there is the self-made man who angrily remembers his son's defiance of authority. There is the garage owner seething with racial prejudice. There is the calm stockbroker who seriously has arrived at his verdict of guilty. There is the wise-cracking salesman anxious to vote so as to be able to get out to the ball game” (Weiler 1). As we delve into deliberations we see that some of the jurors right away are predisposed to prejudice and predetermination.
As the deliberations move forward we notice the attitudes of our jurors in the movie tend to reflect their own preconceived beliefs about the innocence or guilt of the defendant. The jurors tend to seek only information that confirms their positions on the case, and disregard information that doesn’t lend support to their own point of view. For example, many of the jurors thought it was clear from the start that the boy was guilty, as was the case with juror #2, so they only remembered the details that supported that belief. Another example, certain jurors failed to notice important details, such as the way the old man walked with a limp, that the female eye witness had marks on her eyes that were caused by prescription eye glasses, and that the knife used to kill the father was actually not all that unusual. They also failed to see that a noisy L train would have made it impossible to hear the boy yell, “I’m gonna kill ya.” The jurors wanted to believe the young boy was guilty, and overlooked details that were contradictory to their predetermined beliefs.
As the movie gets farther into the deliberations the jurors begin to question their own beliefs and biases, thanks to juror # 8, the voice of reason played by Henry Fonda. This juror aids the other jurors in helping them to uncover their own biases, so that they can begin to look at the

evidence and eyewitness testimony objectively. He does this by dissecting the facts and offering them other plausible theories and accounts to explain the evidence and events of the murder. By introducing other possibilities to explain the evidence and eyewitness accounts juror # 8 establishes the element of reasonable doubt in the minds of the other jurors. By planting this seed of doubt in the minds of the other jurors they begin to pay more attention to detail and start questioning their unwillingness to look at other possibilities. As deliberations continue on towards the conclusion of the movie we see our jurors take on an objective approach to determining their verdict. “One by one, Fonda convinces the jurors that there is reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt. The tide of conformity that works against him at the outset of the story works for him by story's end. Hidden prejudices are brought into the open, specious evidence is questioned, and faulty logic is (for the most part) challenged. The defendant is declared not guilty and the jurors walk away richer for the process” (Anderson 1).
Human nature will invariably always be part of our jury system. Will our jurors always possess prejudices, biases and preconceived notions towards the defendant, perhaps? Twelve
Angry Men is an example of how our judgment can be affected by our own viewpoints and perceptions regarding a particular matter or issue, nevertheless Twelve Angry Men is a great example of overcoming prejudices and biases. In this movie we see that through a careful investigation of the facts, and learning to examine things objectively the impression of the guilt of a person can easily be reversed, thus making us think that in fact, he is not culpable. Twelve
Angry Men shows us that the jury system isn’t always influenced by personal prejudice and bias.

Works Cited
12 Angry Men. Dir. Sidney Lumet. 1957.
Anderson, Phil. Schoolhelper.net. 12 May 2011. Web. 16 July 2011.
Conrad, Clay S. "Death Qualification," Leads to Biased Juries." Law & Justice. Vol. 129. 2670. USA Today
Magazine, March 2001. 20-22.
Dirks, Tim. "12 Angry Men”. Filmsite Movie Review. American Movie Classics Filmsite, 1957. 1-4.
Weiler, A.H. "Twelve Angry Men". New York Times, 15 April 1957. 1.