Blog #8 - Fatin Ishteaaque - 02/14/2020 - Period 3

Fatin Ishteaaque 02/14/2020 Period 3 Blog #N/A

Aim: How does prejudice affect the perspectives of the jurors?

Do Now: What can you tell us about these two people?

We had a certain similarity between the majority of our responses referred to the man on the left as kind, compassionate, organized, or confident. While the man on the right was described as, untrustworthy, unkept, and unorganized. Pretty much, our responses consisted of our class assuming That the man on the right would not be the safest around, going as far as to call him a pedofile or a murderer. 

All in all, the class realized how much one can assume about a person from simply their looks. We make assumptions without knowing either of the two, which is known as prejudice, the topic of February 14th’s lesson. 

In the case that someone might not know what exactly prejudice is, I suggest the video below.

https://youtu.be/7P0iP2Zm6a4

But coming with prejudice is inequality, a topic that was held very strongly in our class, and irradiates very mixed feelings that vary in an almost chaotic way. Now, how does prejudice impact the lives of people.

For a few days now, our class has read the book, or play, “12 Angry Men”, about a jury deciding the verdict of a murder case. The majority of the jurors feel the defendant is guilty, and as time goes on we learn that they only believe so due to the assumptions, caused by the boys roots.

Some say that such assumptions or prejudice are just ways to keep you safe, and allow you to make the correct decisions. However, the majority of the class decided that prejudice was simply an unfair form of grouping. Although my opinion does not represent that of the class, and nor should any one person’s, but I personally believe that a little bit of prejudice, and a little bit of assuming is indeed and effective way at making sure one can stay safe, even going as far as to say that it can be instinctual.  

In our actual acting of the play, we reach a point where the jurors are beginning to see how their prejudice and assumptions were affecting their decisions. The 11 - 1 vote of guilty, then becomes 9 - 3 after Juror eight makes a strong claim as to how some testimonies cannot be trusted. 

And in case you thought something like: “maybe the jurors genuinely did think the boy was guilty” then I am sorry to let you know that is most likely not the case. Some of the jurors refer to the defendant as a group, saying line such as: “you cannot trust them” which is a form of prejudice in grouping. 

The great majority, if not then all, of our class agrees that the Jurors, had originally just wanted to leave the room and go about their lives fast, so they then gave into the assumptions they were making, and labelled him as guilty. Personally, I agree and would also add that since Juror Eight seemed like he would keep them there for a long time anyways, they thought it through and realized that, they should indeed take more time to think about it. 

We ended on the note of Juror Eight, proving that a testimony cannot be trusted with full extent. 

Reflection:

After spending about a week or two talking about equality, and hinting at topics like racism and sexism, it’s to say that we only expected a lesson about prejudice at some point, and once we started reading that book, it all came together. If anyone one our class didn’t get the heavy impact prejudice makes on our decision making, then they do now. However, we also ended off learning that all it takes to make people rethink their prejudice and assumptions, is one person with a loud enough voice and some good reasoning.