The Impact of Prejudice on Jury Deliberation
             America says that everyone is granted the right to a fair trial and that he or she is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. America needs to wake up and realize that there is no such thing as a fair trial because everyone possesses prejudices. These prejudices expand on the many flaws of the legal system. Twelve Angry Men is a perfect example that illustrates the numerous prejudices that are brought into the courtroom by a jury alone. Personal and social prejudices enter into the jury deliberation just as often as evidence is entered in the courtroom.
             In Twelve Angry Men, eleven men walk into the jury room expecting the whole ordeal to be over with in a few short moments. What these eleven men do not realize is that they are bringing their own prejudices into the room without actually having weighed the facts that were presented. Luckily, one of the jurors is wise enough to realize what all of the prejudices are about to do-kill an innocent boy.
             The biggest social prejudice that is evident is based on the geographic location of the young boy. Many of these men jump to the conclusion that he is guilty because he grew up on the wrong side of the tracks. How can the jury determine that he is guilty simply because of where he grew up? They have no right to assume that where a person is from determines whether or not he or she has the potential to kill. This prejudiced belief gets them in trouble because they fail to realize that one of their fellow jurors is from the slums. Most of the jurors are convinced that this prejudiced belief cannot be justified so they discard it.
             Throughout the deliberation, tempers begin to flare which ignite many personal prejudices. Some prejudices begin to surface that do not even involve the case at hand. For example, juror three, the last man to give a not guilty vote, begins to attack his fellow jury members. He seem...