How do the differences between the movie and the play contribute to and highlight the major theme of 12 Angry Men?

12 Angry Men is both a film and play that takes place in the 1950s where 12 men are to decide the fate of a boy in an American courtroom directed and written by Reginald Rose and Sidney Lumet. As 12 white men decide the fate of a young adult, the differences between the two adaptations gradually build up the theme. In the play 12 Angry Men, Reginald Rose has provided us the descriptions of the jurors but has made no further attempt to describe the physical attributes of the defendant to make it ambiguous while in the movie of 12 Angry Men, directed by Sidney Lumet, the movie shows the accused as a Latino boy. The differences between the movie and play regarding the defendant relate to corruption in the justice system due to the people of color being greatly affected by the racial bias being involuntarily given. As you eventually read and watch 12 Angry Men furthermore, it’s easy to depict that the majority of the jurors’ choices circulate from prior experiences. Juror 3 is known for his aggressive manner and being hot-tempered in both the movie and play but one piece of detail that stuck out during the movie was that, at the end of the film, Juror 3 rips ups the pictures of his son and cries (Lumet) while Juror 3 shouts “Not guilty” but never show that the decision he made involved his son or whatsoever. All of the harbored anger from Juror 3 from his bad parenting resulting in a bad father-and-son relationship has been involved in every decision he has made in deciding the boy’s guilt or innocence and as he realizes that, it must have got him to change his vote to not guilty in the play and rip his picture as a way of saying “Let’s move on from the past”. As to how this correlates to bias, Juror 3 assumed the Latino boy is the same as his estranged son because they grew up in an area known as “the slums” and it’s known for where most criminals originate and produce which must have affected Juror 3’s choices and decisions. To sum up, bias and prejudice are capable of corrupting our justice system as the majority of the white men assume the defendant is guilty because he’s Hispanic and occupied in urban neighborhoods known as “the slums”. Based on descriptions of the defendant to Juror 3’s details, the theme can be relevant in any century even in modern-day since the justice system corruption still occurs today. As the 12 men hold a grave responsibility in their hands, most of the decisions they make are from either prior experience or racial stereotypes.