The movie ‘12 angry me’ is not only humorous but it is also informative. It is a candid portrayal of various socio-psychological perspectives, used in during the study of human social behavior. Filmed as a story of a 12-members jury, under the directions of a judge, to determine an anonymous verdict in a murder case, the film delivers very convincing illustrations of cognitive dissonance, groupthink, and schemas.
As the jury’s deliberation session commences, the jurors have the privilege of familiarizing with one another. In their conversation, the audience cannot help but recognize the informal anonymity in their feeling that the defendant is guilty of his accused crime. However, before during these moments, juror 2 makes it clear that he has never been in jury before, while juror 3 confesses that he was asleep during the court session. Even more interesting, juror 7 makes it clear that he is in a hurry to attend a ball game, and as such, the jury ought to finalize their general reaction from the court sessions to a guilty verdict. When the jurors ultimately take their positions around the jury table, jury 4 suggests that the jurors should take a preliminary vote, as the jury customs dictates.
The preliminary vote results in 11 of the 12 jurors voting in favor of the defendant’s guilt, while the one of them votes in favor of the defendant’s acquittal. Immediately, the isolated decision by juror 8 to cast reasonable doubt on the defendant’s guilt against the other jurors’ decision receives a general distaste from the rest of the jurors. Among the most vocal of the juror’s to express their distaste are juror 3, 7, and 10. Specifically from juror’s 10 reaction, he sarcastically insinuates that he is not surprised that the prelimin...
... middle of paper ...
... his action, and make the meeting last less long. Similarly, like most of the jurors in the room he has an acute distaste for correction. After all, most of them seem to conform to a certain desired ideal – that is, being right. This way, irrespective of the defendant’s sentence, he is okay with making any decision, provided no one attempts to reproach him. This conformity to ‘being seen as right’ makes him very close with juror 11.
Conclusively, the film proves that groupthink, conformity, and schema, as aspects of human behavior, can produce stereotypes, prejudices and influence poor choices and presumptions in decision making. Conversely, these aspects are somewhat helpful. The input of these aspects in interpersonal relationships by some individuals challenges the others to think harder. Ultimately, they are able to produce more concrete and decisive solutions.
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
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.
Jury service is an important civic duty that every citizen of the United States will ever perform. Legal knowledge or education is not required to perform the duty; all that is asked is that you keep an open mind, free of any preconceived ideas, personal bias or prejudices when presented with a case. In the 1957 movie 12 Angry Men, the jury consists of twelve white-males who are judging whether or not a young Puerto Rican boy from the slums stabbed his father to death. From the beginning of the film, all the jurors except one¬, Juror number 8, are convinced of the young boy’s guilt simply because of his social economic background. Although, the young boy was destined to be guilty from the start, the decision of Juror number 8 to not conform influenced the remaining jurors to objectively review the evidence, changing the minority vote of not guilty to become the majority.
The term groupthink in this report is defined as, the social psychological phenomenon that results in groups during pressure situations. This social psychology theory is broken down into eight signs. Illusion of invulnerability, Collective rationalization, Belief in inherent morality, Stereotyped views of out-groups, Direct pressure on dissenters, Self-censorship, Illusion of unanimity, Self-appointed “mindguards”. According to research conducted by Irving Janis, there are three conditions to groupthink. The first, "high group cohesiveness" which is the direction for a group to be in unity while working towards a goal, or to satisfy the emotional needs of its members. Secondly, the structural faults such as insulation of the group, lack of norms and central leadership, in addition social background of group members. The third, situational context includes the circumstances of the groups meeting, social roles and expected behavior. This notion is exemplified during the movie, "12 Angry Men". The purpose of this essay is to examine the movie content to display the groupthink symptoms in place. Groupthink consists of eight major factors that occur during the film's scenes, as the twelve men debate a premeditated murder court case. All of the factors continue to rise as the jury discusses the young man's fate. During the film, a unanimous vote must be reached, despite this one man refuses to vote guilty. In 1957 the Orson Welles directed film opens as the judge explains the case and its severity. Soon after the group forms as the 12 men enter the jury discussion room. During these scene frames, the case evidence is explained. As the men talk they give details of an old man living beneath the boy testified, that he heard a fight, stat...
Twelve Angry Men was mainly a movie focused on a twelve-man jury’s discussion in a capital murder case. The case was about an eighteen year old boy who was blamed for murdering his own father. It was a first-degree murder trial, which meant a guilty decision would be an automatic death punishment. Prior to the deposition, the jurors casted votes and because the suspect had a criminal record and many incidental proofs accumulated against him, eleven of the jurors voted “guilty.” Only one person of the twelve-man jury, juror eight who was the protagonist, voted “not guilty.” As the discussion begun, the jurors learned about personalities and background of other participants of the jury. And gently, juror eight directed them toward a conclusion of “Not Guilty” with an exception of juror three, the antagonist, who was the last person to change his decision. In the movie, juror eight and juror three played a big role in informal leadership because they both provided different points of view and helped lead to effective and ethical group decision-making.
The movie, 12 Angry Men, portrays the decision-making process of a case involving twelve men as the jury. Some have clear bias while others have the sincere goal of justice being served. In the beginning, 11 jurors were ready to give a guilty verdict before the details of the case were explored. However, the two men with the most complex relationship are Juror 3 and Juror 8. Juror 3 and Juror 8 are the two characters in 12 Angry Men that drive the plot along, although their persistent conflicting views stemming from differences in backgrounds, behaviors and attitudes cause them to constantly clash.
Juror 7, a fast-talking salesman, wants the jury to reach a decision quickly because he wishes to attend a baseball game that evening. Juror 8 (Mr. Davis), a complex and thoughtful architect, casts the only contrary vote, declaring that he has doubts about the case and wants to give the boy, who has had a challenging life in the ghetto, a fair hearing. Juror 9, an elderly and frail man to whom the jurors have paid little attention to points out the conflicts in the prosecution's version of events on the night of the murder, and he is especially convincing when he notes problems with the testimony of a prosecution witness who is also elderly. The same man, along with Mr. Davis, manages to sway Jurors 5 and 11 to their side, for a total of four “not guilty” verdicts. Consequently, Juror 3 harasses Juror 11, an Eastern European refugee, for changing his mind. Juror 10, about sixty years old and the owner of a garage, sternly affirms that Mr. Davis is a weak “bleeding heart” before beginning a rant against slum
Above all, the introduction given by the judge is crucial since he states that the jury has the responsibility to distinct the facts and determine if there is a “reasonable doubt” to believe the suspect might be innocent. The suspect is an eighteen year old adolescent accused of murdering his father according to two witnesses who testified against him. In addition, the judge explains that if the final verdict is guilty then a petition for mercy will not be accepted. The drama starts among twelve jurors who strive to reach to a unanimous agreement as indicated by the judge. The only dissenting juror in this group is able to successfully convince the other jurors that the presented evidence was not sufficient to believe the teenager is unmistakably guilty (Rose,
After they have sat down, they begin to discuss the case, but it is done very briefly. They then hold an open vote by raising their hands, which results to a 11-1; eleven believe that the suspect is guilty, one man does not. The other men criticize the man who voted not guilty (juror #8). (7) The majority of the men voted guilty, simply to leave. Juror #7 even tells the group that he wants the thing over with so he can go to the ballgame he had tickets for. Juror #8 is irritated with the group because they weren’t treating the case with any care. He clarifies that he didn’t choose ‘not guilty’ because he believed it but because he wanted to look deeper into the case, and make sure that the verdict is correct so they don’t send an innocent man to prison. (3) Juror #8 is very patient with the group, even though most of the group was very disrespectful towards him. (6) Actually, most of the jurors were intimidating each other
A 12-man jury leaves the court room, and enters the deliberation room, which is extremely hot and small quarters to determine the young man’s fate. The men, names never given during deliberation, are only referred to by their jury number, actually sit around the table in the order of their number. The jurors immediately take a vote, and eleven vote guilty, while Juror 8 votes not guilty. The other jurors are upset by his actions, they don’t understand how he could think he was not guilty. Juror #8 stands with his convictions, and insist that while the young man is probably guilty, he wants to be sure that they really examine all the evidence to ensure that he is guilty without a reasonably doubt. Juror #8, wanting to discuss the case is similar to McLemore’s “G...
Juror 10, uses a condescending term such as, “them” to indicate the defendant and the society he belongs in. Juror 8 wants to prove his point, which reveals reverse discrimination. He cautions the other jurors to take their roles very serious. On page 15, Juror 8 sympathizes with the defendant by saying “Look—this boy’s been kicked around all his life… He’s a tough angry kid. You know why slums get this way? Because we knock ’em over the head once a day, everyday. I think we owe him a few words. That’s all.” Juror 8 votes not guilty because he commiserates with the defendant. Many of the jurors judge each other, based on how they look or how much money they make. This prejudice is revealed when Juror 3 comments on Juror 4’s clothing on page 11 and says “Ask him to hire you. He’s rich. Look at that suit!” In the end, all of the jurors are able to overcome prejudice. At the beginning of the play, most jurors believed their stereotypes to be facts. As they begin to analyze the evidence, the jurors maintain their prejudice and stand firm. However, as they get to know each other, they are compelled to look back at their past prejudices and consider the choices they have
The film “12 Angry Men”, produced in 1957, was filmed in a New York City courthouse, with a majority of the filming taking place in the jury room. As the title of the film implies, all twelve of the main characters are men. These twelve men must unanimously determine the guilt or innocence of a teenage defendant, whom is charged with the murder of his father. This is no trivial decision; all jurors understand that a guilty verdict is an automatic death sentence for the defendant. During the initial verbal vote for guilt or innocence, eleven jurors vote guilty and only one votes not guilty. The rest of the film is about consensus building among the twelve jurors, which eventually come to a unanimous verdict of innocence, consequently saving the life of the teenage boy.
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.
Human beings are so consumed by personal conflicts that they will let the matter blind them when it comes to doing what is most appropriate for society. That occurs during the film 12 Angry Men, when the jurors engage in a great civil war against one another. In the beginning, all seem to be on the same agenda; all except one. When the jury deliberations begin and the first vote is cast, 11 to 1 guilty is the outcome. Juror number eight, played by Henry Fonda, believes that there is reasonable doubt in the case and that further discussion is inevitable. Most of the jurors, especially numbers three, four and ten, contradict his beliefs and find no other way but to convict the defendant on the charge of murder. When Juror eight provides the clarification of the evidence to the rest of the members; all eventually realize the error that