More handpicked essays just for you.
Outline the theories of communication
The psychological phenomena in 12 angry men
Themes in 12 angry men with communication
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Theories Applied to 12 Angry Men When 12 men are trapped into a room for a debate is when the exact definition of a small group of communication is at a rise. The debate, furthermore, is about convicting a young boy, with his life ahead of him, for a murder. The little boy, in which, if found guilty would have a death sentence. The day would be much easier and the verdict would be quicker, if all the men looked at the surface evidence and put a vote in as guilty. The one man, however, changed the easy way out and plead the boy as not guilty. By this man saying not guilty upon the others made this scenario into a debate, which applies many theories upon communication in a small group. The dialectical theory is a group that is communicating and there is often competing tension that pull the conversation into multiple direction (Beeb and Masterson, 2015, p. 252). The dialectical theory applies to the 12 Angry Men because in this clip the 12 jury’s kept pulling back and forth aggressively. The men were all competing with one another and trying to prove the other ones wrong.
The verdict of guilty was easier to come by with the familiar surface evidence. The majority of the
…show more content…
In which, with that in mind this applied to the functional theory. The catch, the functional theory is also a theory of communication to overcome constraints. While watching the clip, I noticed for some of the men to share their opinion was nearly impossible. The men who stood up to claim the verdict of the little boy was not guilty, got attacked with criticism from the other juries who had a different verdict. All the angry men had to function listening to the other angry men in order to come to their own conclusion. Even though throughout this clip it was hard for the angry men to keep an open mind to what others thought had happened, the whole process was a
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.
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
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.
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
This is a problem in which it is possible that we can make mistakes with our own observations, making the testimony of an individual witness not always viable in terms of critical thinking. The second statement on the other hand is a poor inference that concludes that the defendant is guilty without considering all the evidence that exists. Altogether, this film has several critical thinking statements that are both used correctly and
In the play, 12 Angry Men, written by the well-known writer and producer, Reginald Rose, sets the scene in a stuffy jury room on an extremely hot day where 12 jurors must deem whether a boy is guilty for the murder of his father. The jurors struggle to reach a unanimous decision, as tension between the jurors builds up. The author delivers several clear messages through his play such as standing up for what you believe in, and always pursuing the truth. Often times personal feelings, prejudices, and fear of voicing opinions prevent the truth from being exposed.
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.
...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.
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
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
The movie 12 Angry Men depicts the story of 12 men serving on a jury who must determine the destiny of a young man charged with murdering his father (Lidz, 1995). This study represents the analysis of 12 Angry Men movie by applying Tuckman's Stages, to determine if these men acted as a group or a team, as well as analyze the dynamics of this group of men as they weighed the confirmation, demonstration, and personal agendas.
The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.
12 Angry men is about a group of men who are appointed as jury’s. They are put in a room until they could come up with a conclusion, on whether the boy who was convicted of murder is guilty or not.