Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The jurors individual behavior in 12 angry men
The jurors individual behavior in 12 angry men
How movies sterortypes ethnic groups
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The jurors individual behavior in 12 angry men
In this tense, conlfict-filled, voltaic film, a group of 12 jurors were featured who must decide the guilt or innocence of an accused murder of a kid. Initially eleven of the jurors voted “guilty” while only one juror believe the kid did not commit the crime. However, through heated discussion, the jurors gradually changed to a “not guilty” verdict at the end. Conformity played a huge role in the beginning of the film. It refers to the tendency of people to align their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors with those around them. It's a powerful force that can take the form of overt social pressure or subtler unconscious influence. The twelve sat down in a room complaining how hot it was without air conditioning and toke their initial vote publicly. …show more content…
Gordon Abra TA: Lauren Keblusek Take Home Final Exam without providing any valid reasons why when the majority voted “guilty.” Therefore, it strongly suggests that there was strong pressure to conform to the majority. The juror played by Henry Fonda was the only one who voted “not guilty," yet, deliberation was forced to continue due to the requirement of an unanimous jury. As a result, The jurors reacted violently against this dissenting vote by Henry Fonda because some of them wanted to get over with the case as soon possible since they have somewhere else to be. For example, Jack Warden (the baseball guy) said it out loud that he had a baseball game to catch. Therefore, they decided to convince and persuade him into complying to the majority decision by going around the table and explained why they believe the boy to be guilty. Ed Begley (the racist guy) referred to the boy as a slum kid and made stereotypical as well as racist remarks such as slum kids who belong to certain ethnic groups are inherently rotten. There was an internal attributions which lead to his verdict of “guilty”. This immediately put Jack Klugman (former slum kid) who was born and raised in the slum on rage and argued back that being a slum kid has nothing correlated with criminal acts. In the beginning, Jack Klugman was not very vocal about his option, and seemed to be unsure about whether or not the boy was guilty. However, after Ed Begley’s racists remake on the bot being a slum …show more content…
For example, the jurors failed to notice that the old man who claimed to have seen saw the boy running down the stairs was lying because he walked with a limp which made it impossible for him to walk from his room to down stairs in 15 secs. Moreover, they also failed to realize that a noisy train would have made it impossible to hear the boy yell, “I’m gonna kill ya.” All of these details would have disconfirmed their expectations, but were overlooked, which suggests a confirmation bias occurred. It refers to the tendency of only seeking information that confirms one’s already existed preconception, opinions or expectations and ignore disconfirming
This report is on a movie called, “12 Angry Men.” The movie is about 12 men that are the jury for a case where a young man is being accused of killing his father. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance (#1) Took charge and respectfully was now the leader. He asked what everyone’s votes were and all of the men except for Jack Lemmon (#8) voted the young man was guilty. Because Jack was the odd one that chose differently than the rest of the men, all of the other Jures, were defensive about the evidence just because they were all so confused.
The jurors took a vote and saw the ratio at eleven for guilty and only one for not guilty. When they repeatedly attacked his point of view, his starting defense was that the boy was innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite as the others had seen it. After Henry Fonda instilled doubt in the mind of another juror, the two worked together to weaken the barriers of hatred and prejudice that prevented them from seeing the truth. The jurors changed their minds one at a time until the ratio stood again at eleven to one, this time in favor of acquittal. At this point, the jurors who believed the defendant was not guilty worked together to prove to the one opposing man that justice would only be found if they returned a verdict of not guilty. They proved this man wrong by using his personal experiences in life to draw him into a series of deadly contradictions.
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,...
... I've lived among them all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars.” In this statement you can clearly tell his prejudice against the kid, just because of where he was raised. Juror # 10 and juror # 3 has prejudice against the kid. Juror # 3 has personal experience with a kid like the accused. “Reminded of his own family's personal crisis, Juror # 3 tells the jurors of his own disrespectful, teen aged boy who hit him on the jaw when he was 16. Now 22 years old, the boy hasn't been seen for two years, and the juror is embittered: "Kids! Ya work your heart out."” This is a direct example of juror # 3’s prejudice against the accused. When prejudice was in effect in the movie, it clouded the judgments of the jurors that were prejudice against the boy just because he was raised in the slums.
Prejudices cause peoples’ perceptions to be altered. The jurors are presented quite a bit about the boy’s background, and his records. Juror Ten struggles to see past the stereotypes and judges the boy based on his past actions. Juror Ten claims,” He’s a common ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English,” (326). What is so ironic about this statement is that Ten claims the boy is dense and bases this claim on the fact that he can’t speak English well. However as corrected by Eleven, it is “doesn’t” not “does”. Perhaps the boy learned from his mistakes and sought to change. That is what life is all about. We fall down and hopefully learn from our mistakes so that we can create a better future for ourselves. Juror Ten is firmly set on the idea that the court covered everything by repeatedly saying, “They proved it,’’ on page 317. Unlike Eight he is not open-minded. As a juror it is important to be skeptics because the in court, lawyers may have presented information in such a way that information is perceived differently. Also crucial information may have not have been analyzed carefully. It’s important not to dwell on the past; its also keep prejudices from exposing you to
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”, 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.
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.
Juror Eight stood up for what he believed in against eleven other jurors, and eventually influenced them all to reach the verdict of not-guilty. At the end of the case, when the jury is about to come to a final decision, Juror Eight says to Juror Three “It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else.
In the film juror 8, played by Henry Fonda, does not have any official authority beyond that of the other 11 jurors. However, without any positional power, Juror 8 is able to persuade the others to switch their votes from guilty to not guilty (12 Angry Men). John K. Clemens, professor and author on leadership observes, “What’s tricky about persuasion is discerning the difference between getting others to think as you do, an obnoxious and risky use of power, and getting others to investigate themselves to discover common truths and facts – truths that transcend preference, prejudice, fear, and competitive jockeying. The courtroom drama [in 12 Angry Men], as a result, is usually a loud wakeup call” (Lee).
The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18-year-old boy for the first-degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony that was heard in court. The group went through the case over and over while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved. While the scorching hot weather conditions and personal affairs to tend to led the juror to make quick and rash decisions, one juror convinced them the fate of the 18 year old was more important than everyone’s problems an convinced them that they could not be sure he was guilty. Juror three took the most convincing. After fighting till he
When the group was voting for the first time by raising their hand in an open vote there were quite a few hands that went up really fast and then others that were slower to go up. This can be interpreted as group conformity. As more and more hands were voting in favor of guilty, there were a few hands that were slowly going up. Specifically, these were the hands of the old man (juror #9) and juror #5 (the man who grew up in the project). These hands went up as they saw more hands going up because they did not want to be the odd man out and stick out to the other men.
Especially in the start when juror#9, the old man votes non guilty in order to extent his support for the protagonist, juror#8. He did that because he felt that juror#8 was the only one standing against the decision and if pitches in, the jury might face it difficult to convince two people, therefore will start looking at the evidences more deeply and clearly. The protagonist influenced every single person in the jury one after the other with his logical capability. He was consistent with his thought of discussing the evidences so that justice is given to the boy. He corners few people in the jury with his logical ability, so that the statements about the case which the jury believed as facts, goes haywire. He as a single person had minority influence in many occasions in the
Throughout the entire course of the movie, Juror #8(Henry Fonda), utilizes several different tactics, perspectives and approaches to influence the decision of other jurors. Internally-focused tactics (Power and Influence, slide 16) arguably served a key role in altering the attitudes of other jurors and making them reconsider their position. He used rational persuasion (Power and Influence, slide 16) by laying out facts that none of the other jurors thought about. He made more external attributions for the boy’s behavior commenting that a possible reason would be his abusive slum upbringing rather than his character. He was successful in sowing seeds of doubt in the minds of other jurors simply by asking