The movie, 12 Angry Men is about twelve white men deciding the jail sentence of an 18-year old boy who has allegedly committed murder by stabbing his father. The men must decide if the boy is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt awaiting a death sentence by electric chair. The first scene of the movie is the jurors waling into one room and Juror number 1(foreman) is seen leader of the deliberation. He tells the jurors to gather around a table and explains that the goal of the deliberation is to vote on the sentence of a boy’s guiltiness and innocence. After no deliberation at first, everyone quickly unanimously votes guilty. Everyone except one juror; who explains the reason why he couldn’t cast his vote guilty was because he couldn’t decide such …show more content…
The whole process of deliberation to many of the jurors was a uncomfortable experience, I am sure they wanted to go back home to their daily lives. Maybe that’s why some didn’t even want to consider the thought forgiving or believing the defendant. The movie in addition to portraying a glimpse into the American justice system also explained several topics discussed in Industrial/Organizational psychology. Industrial-Organizational psychology is the study of human behavior at work and is concerned with the application of psychological principles, theory, and research to the work setting (Landy 2010). The topics being mostly applied to the workplace, are shown in 12 Angry Men is the environment, goal setting, job satisfaction, emotions at work, and …show more content…
Groupthink is a term that is linked to a group and its decisions. The groupthink theory describes the need for the group to have unanimity (Landy 2010). In the situation of the movie, it was necessary for the jurors to reach a consensus about the defendant being guilty or not. The first person to test this theory was juror 8; only one who believed the defendant was not guilty. By doing so juror 8 creates an era of argument as result of the differences in the viewpoints of the jurors. It did not matter if none of the other jurors agreed, juror was going to justify his view point. It’s a good thing he did because if he hadn’t, the jurors would have overlooked major evidence and flaws not thought of before. Like how the kid claimed he had been at the movies while his father was murdered, but when asked couldn’t remember the name of the movie or who was in it. The movie didn’t seem to have the correct groupthink. Hence none of the other jurors wanted to agree with juror 8 who believed the group had voted wrong. Where was the lead juror during all this? In fact juror 1 who was supposed to be the leader sat back and let juror 2 with the help of juror 10 run the deliberation and control the decisions being taken. Maybe if the 12 jurors had been split up into two groups and discussed separately before voting, then the deliberation would have been more
Juror Three was the main antagonist of the story and was also the last one to change his vote to “not guilty.” Throughout “Twelve Angry Men”, he was very aggressive to anyone who did not share the same opinions as him. He stated this to Juror Eight after he was called a sadist, “Shut up! {Lunges at Eight, but is caught by two of the JURORS and is held. He struggles as EIGHT watches calmly. Then he screams.} Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” Also, it was very hard for Juror Three to change his mind. We can see this in the book and the movie. Although the facts he stated were all disproven, he would go back to them. Also, it was hard for him to change his mind because of what happened between him and his son. His son had punched him good
In the very start of 12 Angry Men the judge states, “If there is reasonable doubt in your mind as to the guilt of the accused… then you must declare him not guilty. If, however, there is no reasonable doubt, then he must be found guilty.” (Rose 312). Many of the men do not follow this requirement by being stubborn and by not wanted to listen to other opinions. Another time reasonable doubt was present, and some jurors decided not to listen, was about the knife used to kill the father. Many of the jurors were convinced that the cashier was telling the truth about only having one knife, but Juror Eight proves them wrong by showing the exact same knife sold at the same store. Juror Eight proves there is reasonable doubt by doing this, but many of the men refuse to believe it. Reasonable doubt was present so many times in the play, yet many of the men chose not to listen to all of the
12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in their votes was if there was unanimous vote either guilty or not guilty among the 12 jurors. As the movie progressed the jurors ended up changing their minds as new evidence was brought to their attention by simple facts that were overlooked by the police and prosecutors in the initial investigation. Tempers were raised, and words flew, there was prejudice and laziness of a few of the jurors that affected the amount of time it took to go over all of the eye witness testimonies and evidence. The eye witness testimonies ended up being proven wrong and some of the evidence was thrown out because it was put there under false pretense.
Twelve angry men is a play about twelve jurors who have to decide if the defendant is guilty of murdering his father, the play consist of many themes including prejudice, intolerance, justice , and courage. The play begins with a judge explaining to the jurors their job and how in order for the boy to be sent to death the vote must be unanimous. The jurors are then locked into a small room on a hot summer day. At first, it seems as though the verdict is obvious until juror eight decides to vote not guilty. From that moment on, the characters begin to show their true colors. Some of the characters appear to be biased and prejudice while others just want justice and the truth. Twelve Angry Men Despite many of the negative qualities we see
The play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, written by Reginald Rose, explores the thrilling story of how twelve different orientated jurors express their perceptions towards a delinquent crime, allegedly committed by a black, sixteen-year-old. Throughout the duration of the play, we witness how the juror’s background ordeals and presumptuous assumptions influence the way they conceptualise the whole testimony itself.
In the play Twelve Angry Men, a boy is on trial for supposedly murdering his father after a night of arguing. Rodney King, twenty-five, was beaten by four caucasian Los Angeles Police Department officers on March 3, 1991 (CNN Wire 1). On this day, King was pulled over for exceeding the speed limit while intoxicated (Kaplan 1). The jury of both of these cases played a major role in the verdict of each case. In the play Twelve Angry Men, the twelve men that make up the jury are faced with a difficult decision to make; deciding whether or not a nineteen year old boy was guilty of murder. Fast forwarding forty-three years later, twelve jurors were given the Rodney King case in which they had to decide the fate of the four Los Angeles officers that brutally beat Rodney King, an African-American citizen. Being a member of the jury on the Rodney King case must have been a difficult task given the evidence surrounding the trial.
In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.
At the beginning of the movie, a young man is being tried in court for premeditated homicide. The judge states that this is the most serious charge tried in the criminal courts and that if the young man is found guilty, he will get the death penalty. The judge then sends the main characters, the jury on their way to decide the boys fate. As soon as the jury got into the room, they started their discussion by casting an unanimous vote. Everyone agrees that the boy is guilty except for jury eight. He states that the boy had a rough eighteen years of his life and that might have been a motive for him to kill his father. Jury eight also says he just doesn't want to send the boy to death without talking about the case. Jury ten says the boy is automatically guilty because he is from the slums and his type of people are susceptible to becoming criminals. Jury four goes on to explain how the boy did the murder because the boy stated that he went to the movies with his friends but
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
...a unanimous vote of not guilty. The final scene takes place signifying the "adjourning stage". Two of the jurors, eight and three exchange the only character names mentioned during the film. The entire process of groupthink occurs in multiple ways that display its symptoms on individual behavior, emotions, and personal filters. These symptoms adversity affected the productivity throughout the juror's debate. In all, all twelve men came to an agreement but displayed group social psychological aspects.
Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose was composed to capture how one man’s refusal to conform to the prejudice decision of others prevented a miscarriage of justice. The play centers Juror Eight, who was the first to speak out against the unfair deliberation of the verdict holding out in an 11-1 guilty vote. Juror Eight voices that he is determined to prove the other jurors wrong for their bias deliberation. And yearns for the men to carefully and logically decide whether the young man placed on trial for murder is actually guilty. He advises the men to leave their personal prejudices or biases tendencies behind to provide the courts with an equitable verdict.
Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting play about an unfortunate young man, who was convicted of killing his dad. The worst part was, the young man was only nineteen, and his life was just starting. The jurors listened to all the evidence, then came the hard part, making the decision: guilty, or innocent. Eleven jurors said guilty and only one said innocent. There was a lot of peer pressure involved. I decided to write about different peer pressures three of the jurors used.
I think there was a weak group dynamic. This is because I believe the choices made were not made by themselves and they just agreed or disagreed just to get it over with. This is shown in the movie at about the halfway mark where juror 12 said not guilty but when asked by juror 11 why he said so juror 11 had no response. This proves he had a weak group dynamic because he was only listening to what to other people said and didn’t think of an opinion
From the very beginning of 12 Angry Men, we are shown a jury unevenly divided, eleven of the men voting for guilty, and one voting for not guilty. This
576). In 12 Angry Men, the jury that is voting is a death-qualified jury and all but one wants to convict. They are more prejudiced towards this Hispanic boy who could very well be innocent. In Young’s (2004) study, he proved that death-qualified juries were more likely to have prejudiced views of minorities that they are more willing to convict. In this study, he took a poll that resulted in the death-qualified juries saying that it is worse to let the guilty go free than to convict an innocent person. In both the film and Young’s (2004) study, it is shown that death-qualified juries are very quick to convict when they have someone’s life in their