Using Cognitive Dissonance to Facilitate Jury Deliberation Eleven jurors in the movie 12 Angry Men are ready to convict immediately following the trial of a boy charged with murdering his father. One juror is not ready to cast his vote to convict or acquit without conversation because it is the jury’s sworn duty to deliver a guilty verdict if, and only if, the jury finds the defendant guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, the rest of the jurors are hot, tired and eager to finish the case and move on with their lives. The twelfth juror relies on cognitive dissonance to entice the rest of the jurors into discussion before deciding on the fate of the young man on trial. Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort felt when one’s thoughts and actions are incompatible with their belief. The twelfth juror is relying on cognitive dissonance to cause discomfort in the jurors’ way of thinking, …show more content…
The desire for consistency can go beyond rational thought or force a person to rationalize when things are out of line. People find comfort in knowing what to expect. When what is known and believed is challenged, people are disrupted and forced to make a decision on how to process conflicting information. To avoid the discomfort caused by cognitive dissonance, people may ignore opposing views, examine and change their views to maintain consistency with their actions or even seek reassurance (Defining Communication Theories, 2001). The jurors are faced with making a decision regarding a 19-year old man who is accused of murder, a grave offense and a duty that should not be taken lightly. Though the judicial system is trending toward more stringent prosecution of juveniles, history shows that juvenile rehabilitation efforts are ineffective (Beschle, 1999). Juries often make quick decision based on emotions, limited information and resist changing their minds (Craigie,
Twelve Angry Men is a depiction of twelve jurors who deliberate over the verdict of a young defendant accused of murder, highlighting many key communications concepts discussed throughout the semester. One of these concepts was the perspective of a true consensus, the complete satisfaction of a decision by all parties attributed. An array of inferences were illustrated in the movie (some spawning collective inferences) as well as defiance among the jurors. Each of these concepts play a role endorsing, or emphasizing the other. We can analyze the final verdict of the jurors and establish if there was a true consensus affecting their decision. In turn, we can analyze the inferences during the deliberation and directly link how they affect the consensus (or lack thereof). Defiance among the jurors was also directly
Supreme Court ruling Graham v. Florida (2010) banned the use of life without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) abolished the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. They both argued that these sentences violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While these landmark cases made great strides for the rights of minors passing through the criminal justice system, they are just the first steps in creating a juvenile justice system that takes into consideration the vast differences between adolescents and adults. Using sociological (Butler, 2010) and legal (Harvard Law Review, 2010) documents, this essay will explicate why the next such step to be taken is entirely eliminating the use of the life without parole sentence for juveniles, regardless of the nature of the crime being charged.
There is no way to measure how everyday people of the jury compartmentalize the information given to them. By disregarding information, does it work in favor of justice or does it highlight a forbidden topic. Using a jury trial and the disregarding of evidence played a key role in the OJ Simpson case that began in 1994 (Jasanoff: 714). Just after a year of his acquittal of the first case, he became the defendant of a civil suit placed by the relatives of the victims. When asking juries to disregard statements and evidence can change their decision-making abilities, especially if the evidence directly links the alleged criminal to the crime as it did arguably in OJ Simpson’s case. During this trial, the defense tried to highlight and find errors in the Los Angeles Police Department’s procedures for collective and transporting evidence (Jasanoff: 715). The evidence, which was once connected to the trial, was now inspected to establish both its validity and reliability. The outside influence of the evidence played a role in the decision, which included the credentials of the lab and their procedures. In sum, the jury’s roles in legal proceedings emphasize the influence of the everyday nature in the law. In these cases, the jury has much more control on the case rather than the law controlling their
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.
For decades, the contentious issue on whether or not juveniles should be tried as adults for heinous crimes has stirred up a gargantuan amount of disputation. However, juveniles are taken into account as “children” only under certain circumstances. When the situation comes to smoking, drinking, voting and watching rated-R movies, juveniles are merely children. However, when the circumstances are absolute, juries are so compelled to have children be tried as adults when juveniles commit severe crimes that courts go to the extent of sentencing juveniles to long-term punishments. Nonetheless, juveniles who are tried as adults arise significantly more problems than they had before, thus, juveniles should not be tried as adults in spite of that it causes so much controversy and is
...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.
Cognitive dissonance is a communication theory mostly used in the field of social psychology in providing a theoretical framework in dealing with various issues relating to psychology. The title provides us with the concept that cognitive is thinking while dissonance is the inconsistency or conflict brought about. Cognitive dissonance manifests when one holds two or more incompatible beliefs simultaneously. This theory has been used and applied in several disciplines including communication, due to its simplicity and straightforwardness. The theory is commonly applied in these dynamic fields since it replaces previous conditioning or reinforcement theories by viewing individuals as more purposeful decision makers striving to acquire a balance in their beliefs. Cognitions are chunks or bits of knowledge which can pertain to any variety of values, emotions or values. These cognations can be related to one another or they can also be completely independent from each other (Cooper, 06). For instance, one may like to eat junk food, but may also be trying to lose weight. The two cognitions are related to each other in tha...
It is expected that at a young age, children are taught the difference between what is right and what is wrong in all types of situations. The majority of Supreme Court Justices abolished mandatory life in prison for juveniles that commit heinous crimes, argued this with the consideration of age immaturity, impetuosity, and also negative family and home environments. These violent crimes can be defined as murder, rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault and the like depending on state law. With these monstrous acts in mind the supreme court justices argument could be proven otherwise through capability and accountability, the underdevelopment of the teenage brain and the severity of the crime. Juveniles commit heinous crimes just like adults
According to Donna M. Bishop( 2003) of the University of Chicago criminal justice system “Transfer of juvenile defendants to criminal courts for adult prosecution has traditionally been justified on the grounds that the juvenile court is ill equipped to handle two classes of offenders. In cases of seriously violent crimes, the public has historically demanded heavy penalties that exceed the authority of the juvenile court (Tanenhaus, forthcoming). While commission of a repugnant act neither transforms a young o...
A conflict between actions and beliefs causes distress, and people strive to rid that distress by changing their beliefs when they cannot change their actions. Cognitive dissonance also factors into people agreeing with the
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.
The opposition believes that holding court cases where juveniles remain tried as adults undoubtedly violates the rights of the juvenile. Initially, the age of a person when the alleged crime occurred decides whether or not he or she will be tried as a juvenile. “Definitions of who is a juvenile vary for different purposes within individual states as well as among different states” (Rosenheim 36). Children, ages seven to seventeen, who are suspected of crime, must be treated as children in need of guidance and encouragement, and not as vicious criminals (Emerson 6). Also, the opposition feels that the juvenile cannot accept full responsibility for his or her actions. Some people insist that each minor who committed a crime was influenced in some way or another (Emerson 8). Not only does the opposition believe that the minor was influenced, but they also believe that the juvenile was not able to control his or herself (Emerson 8). In addition, juveniles have not yet reached the necessary maturity level to share a prison amongst other adults. Minors, isolated for punishment, do not deserve this radical treatment (Staff Report C13). Numerous lawsuits are filed annually to fight the improper incarceration of juveniles who were tried as adults (Staff Report C13). Most importantly, courts must not rely on prosecutors to prove that a child knew whether or not that the crime committed was right or wrong. “The court is exhorted to treat children brought before it with the same kind of care, custody, and discipline that they would receive ...
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.
The quietness and patience juror 8 displayed caused tension amongst the other jurors creating careful and adequate (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p.453) deliberations. Juror 8 's circle of influence (Covey, 2013) directly influenced the other jurors’ circle of concern (Covey, 2013) when forcing them to question their thought process. Juror 8 chose a collaborative negotiation (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p. 63) method when deliberating with the other jurors immediately handing down guilty verdicts for the defendant. Furthermore, juror 8 used his ACES to help the other jurors cross the creek (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p.