Prejudice and stereotypes in doze angry guys essay

Stereotypes work with generalisations to characterise people, and 10th juror is particularly prone to stereotyping the defendant based on socio-economic background. This individual regularly makes generalised statements about ‘those people’ (p. 6), not having justifying his opinions with concrete information. Examples include:. I’m tellin’ you they let the kids operate wild up there’ (p. 6).. ‘¦ You’re not likely to tell us that we’re supposed to believe that child, knowing what he can. Listen, We have lived between ’em all my life. Weight loss believe anything they say.

I mean, they’re born liars. ‘ (P. 8). The youngsters who crawl outa these places will be real trash. I avoid want any part of these people, I’m suggesting (p. 12). ‘Let’s speak facts. These people are created to lie’ ¦ ‘I’ve known a lot of who were OKAY, but which is exception’ (pp. 51-52). ‘They’re violent, they’re vicious, they’re ignorant, and they will cut all of us up’ (p. 53) The one instance where 10th juror uses specifics is when he argues ‘his type, they’re multiplying five times as fast as our company is.

That’s the statistic. ‘ (P. 53).

Yet he only uses this statistic to ground his personal fears: ‘They’re against us, they hate us, they would like to destroy us ¦ If we don’t slap them straight down whenever we may, then they happen to be gonna own us. They’re gonna breed us away of presence. ‘ (P. 53). 10th juror is definitely not the only person guilty of these kinds of generalisation and stereotyping. For instance , 4th states: The young man ¦ Your dog is a product of any filthy neighborhood and a broken home ¦ Slums are places to breed for criminals. I know this. So do you. It’s obvious. Children coming from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society. (P. 12).

In the same way, 3rd juror muses:.. occasionally I think we would be better away if we required these difficult kids and slapped ’em down before they make difficulties, you know? Save us a lot of time and cash. (P. 3) Neither fourth nor 3 rd jurors consult specific information on the defendant’s situation, but instead rely on generalised stereotypes which support their own prejudices against ‘those people’. In fact , 9th is the simply juror to carefully review specific particulars from the circumstance rather than spending a ton general school stereotypes. This individual notes: ¦ This kid’s been walked on all his life.

You understand ” moving into a slum, his mom dead since he was nine. He spent a year and a half in an orphanage while his father dished up a imprisonment term to get forgery (p. 8). This lists particular facts and variables regarding the kid’s upbringing, rather than distilling him into a non-specific member of a socio-economic group. Similarly, in 8th juror’s speech on-page 23, he lists specific details of the victim’s rough existence ” his wagering, his vérité, his job history. This can be contrasted with 10th juror’s simplistic and prejudiced frame of mind: ‘listen, we know the father was obviously a bum’ (p. 24).

This kind of contrast among these two perceptions is that 9th juror is usually attempting to kind his opinions based on the particular factors impacting the accused and the victim, and trying to focus on the human beings in the case in front of you. 10th juror is content to convict the defendant based on stereotypes and generalised traits of others in similar scenarios. Once again, simply by aligning the less basic attitude with 8th juror, Twelve Irritated Men promotes compassion and condemns bias and stereotyping.

You may also want to consider the following: misjudgment in 12 angry guys, prejudice in 12 irritated men

1