Alexa Hanson-Wagner

Psychology 1010
Justice Morath
What If
In my early teens, I had a fear of people with mental disabilities. I did not
understand them, and I never knew what to expect from them. I was this way until I
met Maddie. In my sophomore year of high school, I enrolled myself in Dance III, the
highest level available to students who didnt audition for the dance team. During
orientation, I walked into class and I saw Maddie, a seven-teen year old girl with
Downs syndrome. I thought it was a joke, and I made the unfair judgment that
Maddie had no dancing skills and that she should not be in the class. I vented to my
friends about the situation, and the way they reacted showed me that I was being
cruel. I bucked up and went to class still any way, and I soon found out that Maddie
had as much talent as any girl in the studio, it might take her a little bit longer to
figure out the choreography, but by no more than a minute. I also sweetest and
most happy girl I had ever met, she and I soon became friends and I realized that
she had every right to be in that class. My prejudices soon resided, and now I know
how to appreciate all people with disabilities, and I also know that being too quick to
complain can backfire.
The movie 12 Angry Men was filmed in 1957, a time period where people held
strong prejudices towards others but did not hide them. Society was held at a
certain standard, even if it was morally correct or not. The Jury was full of men who
were very different, by age, race, beliefs, which caused a lot of conflict and also for
some of the prejudices to unveil themselves. At the beginning, most of the jury just

held hidden prejudices towards the defendant. An example of this is when Juror #8
says to Juror #10, Do you really think the boyd shout out a thing like that so the
whole neighborhood could hear him? I dont think so, hes much too bright for that.
And Juror #10 replies, Bright? Hes a common ignorant slob. He dont even speak
good English. Juror #11 then corrects him, He doesnt speak good English. Juror
#10 makes the assumption that just because a person cannot speak English well,
means that they are not smart and while he is making this accusation he actually
insults himself, because he uses the wrong word when making a statement. Say
Juror #10 is a bright man, then he just proved his own argument wrong, but that
does not phase Juror #10 because his prejudice thoughts are blocking out the logic.
As the movie goes on, the men, as the title says, get angry, but with each
other, more prejudices start to unveil and they are all made towards each other. The
Jurors speak loud and clear about what they think, an incredible moment that this is
shown is when another person has silently voted the defendant not guilty. Juror #3
then says to Juror #5 who also grew up in a slum, Brother, you really are
something. You sit here vote guilty like the rest of us, then some golden-voiced
preacher starts tearing your poor hart out about some underprivileged kid, just
couldnt help becoming a murderer, and you change your vote. Well if that isnt the
most sickening, why dont you drop a quarter in his collection box? Then it turns
out that it was actually Juror #9 who changed his vote. This is an example of how
the arguments escalated, and even though the defendant and Juror #5 were two
very different people, just because they grew up in similar situations, Juror #3
automatically assumes that Juror #5 would defend the defendant.
A lot of what the Jurors said to each other might have been considered
immoral, especially during present times. However, even a frustrated man would

not want to be the decider in the execution of a boy. Whether this side of the
frustrated man is conscious or subconscious, it still exists, which makes persuasion
possible and easy. During the case, no one had concrete facts, so Juror #8 applied
what if scenarios to persuade the other Jurors to plead not guilty. Juror #6 says,
You think hes not guilty, huh? Juror #8 replied, I dont know, its possible.
What if scenarios were just as possible as all the evidence provided during the
trial. The moral side of his arguments appeal to the other Jurors, Youre talking
about a matter of seconds! Nobody can be that accurate! says Juror #3, and Juror
#8 replies, Well, I think testimony that can put a boy into the electric chair should
be that accurate. By reminding everyone of the outcome that their decision could
be, he placed in front of them the immoral decision that they would be making if the
case was not absolutely accurate.
These prejudices are often made still today, such as the one that had about
Maddie. People need to realize that their opinions may be unfair, and no matter how
angry, especially if angry, they need to take a step back and analyze what is going
through their mind, learn more, and then make the judgment. If Juror #8 had not
had some doubt, not gone against all social stereotypes, and not have thought
what if? the defendant would have been sent to the electric chair. There were still
no concrete facts proving that the boy was not guilty, but the morality behind our
law says that a man is not guilty until proven otherwise because it is better to let a
guilty man go free than to kill an innocent one.