The New York skyline lying in the dorsum of the room.and the really spareness of the scene offers a changeless reminder of the significance these characters play. but as representations of wider societal groups of twentieth century America.The tenth Juror shows features similar to those of the 3rd.
The New York skyline lying in the dorsum of the room.and the really spareness of the scene offers a changeless reminder of the significance these characters play. but as representations of wider societal groups of twentieth century America.The tenth Juror shows features similar to those of the 3rd.Tags: What To Cite In A Research PaperShould Homework Be Banned From SchoolsA Five Paragraph Essay That Shows How Oedipus Is A Tragic Hero500 Word Essay On Iraq WarHistory Coursework Assignment B Question 2 GcseComputer Science Term PaperThesis Statement On Religion And Politics
Immediately after some of the jurors enter the room where they are to deliberate over all that they have listened to for the last six days, there is evidence of prejudicial thinking: Social, racial, and personal prejudices enter quickly into the jury room. He has also gone to reform school for knifing someone. 7 also forms opinions quickly, mainly because he wants to get out of the courthouse and do what he desires. Personal prejudice is most strongly evident in the characters of Juror Three and Juror Ten. Note how he appeals to stereotypical views in the following quote: We don't owe him a thing. showing “we’d be better off if we took these tough childs and slapped ‘em down before they make problem.” It is apparent from this statement that he holds really small respect for human life and he is unable to see the truth objectively. ” Rose has used the 3rd Juror’s inability to see the facts presented objectively and his actions miming those of a “self-appointed public avenger” to picture the sedate impact a narrow minded position will keep on the deliberations of the jury.His word picture of the 3rd and 10th jurymans displays the impact they may hold on the democratic system.nevertheless the 8th and 9th and 11th jurymans picturing unity and impartial idea counter this. ” such words mirror Rose’s belief that the jury system is strongly reliant on its jurymans ability to disassociate their determinations from their personal beliefs and experiences.Immediately after some of the jurors enter the room where they are to deliberate over all that they have listened to for the last six days, there is evidence of prejudicial thinking: No. Consider how Juror Three is shown to judge the defendant harshly because of the own experience he has had with his son. 3 brings his bitterness over his relationship with his son, as well as his racial prejudices, into the jury room. 8, who only wants to be conscientious and give the defendant fair treatment. 8 accuses this juror of wanting to see the boy die because he "personally want[s]" this to happen, "not because of the facts." Juror No. Juror Three is thus shown to be prejudiced against the defendant because of his own bad experience with his child and the way in which he judges him. Clearly this is a powerful example of the prejudice that threatens the somewhat fragile concept of justice that is established in this play.as he exclaims “They are wild animals/ It’s those people!I’m tellin’ you they let the childs run wild up at that place. ” This statement non merely depicts a deficiency of intelligence. The tenth Juror is so revealed to hold been raised in a similar context. [and having] a streak of sadism." Wrongly, Juror No. Note the way that Juror Ten talks about "'em" and his supposed knowledge of this group of them and their natural deceit.He allows his own personal experiences to intrude into the realm of what should be a dispassionate, objective experience.