After viewing the movie 12 Angry men, clear and set boundaries can be observed that coincide with this week’s assignment involving persuasion, conformity and influence. One of the initial questions that was proposed after the jurors began deliberations was a conversation that juror 2 and 3 initially had in the beginning of the film. Juror 3 asked juror 2 “How did you like it”? Response was, “pretty interesting huh”? Return response from juror 3 was, “ugh, I almost fell asleep, I’ve sat on may juries, what gets me, is the way those lawyers talk and talk especially when it’s an open and shut case like this”. Juror 3 replies, “they are entitled”. Return response from 2 is I guess he’s entitled, but, if you ask me, I’d slap those tough kids down …show more content…
Once jurors get settled and begin the process an initial vote commences to see where everyone stand on a verdict. The foreman 1 asks “who thinks he’s guilty raise your hands” (Lumet, 1957), 7 of the 12 jurors initially raise their hands right away, but a distinct hesitation from two jurors can be seen when the camera pans around the room looking at the other jurors.
A social pressure or conformity can be assumed when a decision of eleven guilty to one not guilty is encountered. Therefore, the process to talk things commences, juror 9, asks juror 8 his reasoning stating his not guilty
…show more content…
Immediately juror 12 states, “it seems to me that it’s up to the group of us to convince this gentleman that he’s wrong and we’re right” (Lumet, 1957). This statement is a blatant show of intended coercion and forced conformity. After this statement, conversation opens to hash-out details and facts as to why the others feel that the defendant is guilty to convince juror 8. Juror 10 response uses words such “you know this kid”, “what he is”, “I’ve lived among them all my life”, “you can’t believe a word they say”, “I mean they are born liars” (Lumet, 1957). These phrases show group polarization, bigotry, racism, stereotyping and prejudice. Group polarization as per out text is “when individuals who have similar though not identical opinions participate in a group discussion, their opinions become more extreme” (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2014, p.
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. Courtney B. Vance took charge once again and calmly stated that everyone has their rights and lets have everyone explain the reasons why they thing the child is guilty or not guilty. Ossie Davis (#2) explained why he voted guilty. While explaining this he was very calm and wise. HE handled conflicts in the same way. Next was George C. Schott (#3) He also voted guilty. George was very st...
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.
Despite knowing how angry the other men would be at him, the 8th juror stood up for the defendant and did what he could to make sure the boy had a fair trial. From the beginning, Juror eight was clearly confident in what he believed in and did not care about how foolish he looked. The confidence he showed brought the other jurors to rethink their vote. Juror nine was the first person to recognize the amount of courage it took for juror eight to stand up against the men. After being the first to change his vote nine explains “This gentleman chose to stand alone against us. That’s his right. It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly. He left the verdict up to us. He gambled for support and I gave it to him. I want to hear more. The vote is ten to two.” The 9th juror agreed with the eight juror about wanting justice. By standing up for justice he gave nine the courage to stand up for the same reason. Juror eight continued to be consistent with what he believed in. Never did he
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
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.
Dictating a man's future would seem enough be a difficult task for anyone, for it is whether this man ends up with a lifetime in prison or he is given the privilege to walk the streets. Deciphering facts from fictitious tales, and putting everything up for questioning. Such an experience was only granted to men in the 1950’s. A time when race and gender were gradually beginning to not be definitive of an individual's social class. Although, it may seem like an incredibly undesirable task, sitting in hot New York courthouse with eleven other men is needed for justice to rightfully be served. Yet, the justice system is inevitably susceptible to a flaw, as personal prejudices slip through the initial screening and become apparent in the jury room. In Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men the jury systems imperfections are addressed. He demonstrates the atmosphere of the jury room by introducing twelve characters with unique personalities. A particular character I believe to stand out from the rest would be juror ten. Upon first glance, he comes across as a bigot, but as the play continues he exhibits he is also impatient, arrogant, cantankerous and several other traits.
According to Myers and Twenge (2013), conformity is “a change in behavior or belief as the result of real or imagined peer pressure” (p. 188). In 12 Angry Men, conformity is seen in the beginning of the film. As the jury is voting on the suspect’s verdict, there is a hesitancy from a few of the jurors. In the beginning, only a couple jurors raised their hands for “guilty”. Slowly, more and more people started raising their hands as a result of peer pressure from those around them. In the end, everyone but one person was raising their hand for “guilty”, and the vote was 11 to 1 “guilty”. This scene relates to the study of Asch’s (1955) line comparison studies of group pressure. In this study, a line of people was supposed to tell
Stop for a moment and think how many times have you said “I'll kill you” to a person and actually killed that person? Two times? Three times? We all know that the answer is never unless of course you're actually a killer. This is what might or might not have happened with the boy who was accused of killing his father in the movie 12 Angry Men. Firstly, let's consider on the title of the movie itself which says “12 Angry Men.” Twelve is indicating the number of group members, angry is indicating the state of their temper, and men indicating their gender. So the title of the movie strongly connects to the name of the class “Group Communication Studies” because both involve a group, a goal and communication among the group members in order to achieve a common goal. The 96 minute film is all about a group of jurors sitting in a room on a very hot day to decide the fate of an 18 year old boy. Each judge had to come up with a decision— either the boy is guilty or not guilty of killing his father with a switch blade knife. The entire movie theme revolves around the group and how it completes its task. The group is so much involved in the discussion and there are so many conflicts that the members even forget to introduce themselves, hence the audience has to remember them by numbers of the order of their seating arrangement. This movie is a perfect detailed and visual example of how a group forms and develops over time, and most importantly the personality and approach of Jury number 8 gives an idea about how important it is to participate, speak up, and take a stance even in the early stages of the group formation. Each member's involvement and contribution to the group goal is important as it can reshape and change the dimensions of o...
However, juror 3 did not maintain control after discussions with juror 8. For example, when juror 8 made a personal attack on juror 3, juror 3 lost his cool, requiring restraint from the other jurors to the point of yelling, “Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p.459). His emotional intelligence (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p. 29) was a superior negotiation tactic throughout the deliberation process.