The Game of JusticeHow can you be safe in the United States with criminals on the streets and innocent people incarcerated? The standard of justice in America is getting lower and lower every year. There is only one reason: the jury system in the United States. In Reginald Rose's play, Twelve Angry Men, the jury system proves ineffective due to the bias and ignorance of the jurors, and jurors jump to conclusions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay For starters, some people who don't think they're secretly biased are, and they have no idea. For example, after recounting how he and his son fought, the third juror says, "The line was 'I'm going to kill you.' That's what he said. To his own father. I don't care what kind of man he was. It was his father. That damn rotten kid. I know him. What they look like. What they do to you. How they kill you every day. My God, can't you see? How come I'm the only one who sees? Damn, I can feel that knife going in. » (2.72) This shows that because of his feelings for his son, he thinks that all young men are threats. It also shows that there can be hidden biases in every jury room across the world. Juror Ten shows another example of bias earlier in the play. After stating that he had lived in the slums all his life, he said: “This kid on trial, his guy, is multiplying five times faster than us. It's the statistic. Five times. And they are wild animals. They are against us, they hate us and want to destroy us. (2.65) This shows that he thinks that all the people who lived in slums are threats to humanity. This also shows that Juror 10 might vote "guilty" due to his view of the defendant. Throughout the play, prejudice played a large role in deciding whether the accused was “guilty” or not. Second, jurors jumping to conclusions is another problem we have in the jury system. For example, five minutes after entering the room, the jurors have their first vote and "[...]eleven to one for 'guilty'." (1.11) This shows that eleven of the jurors voted for this man to be killed without even discussing it. If the man who voted "not guilty" was anyone else, a man would be chosen to be killed without any discussion. During the trial, the prosecution said the shopkeeper said the knife used in the murder was "the only one of its type he ever had in stock". (1.21) By jumping to conclusions, all the jurors believe this to be true, without thinking about it. The eighth juror takes out a knife identical to the one used in the murder. The hasty conclusions played an important role at the very beginning of the debate, but they were reduced to nothing by the end of the piece. Some may argue that the jury system is effective because it gives power to the right people. This is not true, however, because sometimes power is given to the wrong people. Many racist people serve on a jury and influence other jurors with their biased opinion. For example, when speaking of the killer, Juror Ten says, “He is vulgar and ignorant. He doesn't even speak English well. (1.37) This shows that bad people sometimes have the power to end someone's life, and their biased thoughts make them believe what might not be the case. This also shows that juror ten is not a very good juror. People who say the jury system is effective.