More handpicked essays just for you.
Personal insight of jurors in 12 angry men
12 angry men description of all jurors
Importance of the jury in 12 angry men
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Cooper Finch
Social Psychology
5/6/2014
12 Angry Men Paper
The film “12 Angry Men” has many different social psychology theories. This compelling film was written in the 1950’s and was about a twelve man jury that was sitting in on a case that dealt with an eighteen year old boy being tried for first degree murder. The boy’s father was stabbed in the chest with a four inch switch blade in his apartment.
The jurors listen to the trial then they go into another room to converse about the case and try and decide whether the kid is innocent or guilty. At first the jurors do not take the case serious, and the majority of them have other things that they would rather be attending too. For example, one gentleman votes guilty so that he could get done with the case and go catch a professional baseball game. The jurors decide to have a public vote when they first get in the room. Initially eleven of the twelve jurors vote guilty. This is critical because the vote needs to be unanimous to convict the young boy, otherwise there would be a hung jury. There was one gentleman, juror number 8 that took a critical thinking approach to the case. Through an intense conversation each juror gradually switched their minds to say that the kid was not guilty. All twelve of the jurors were swayed to a not guilty verdict.
In this paper I will talk about various social psychology theories and aspects that were discussed in class that were used in the movie as well. Some of the aspects and theories include heuristics, conformity, attitude and behavior, group process/influence, prejudice, discrimination, persuasion, and social beliefs. First, many of the jurors formed schemas that relied on heuristics that led them to stereotype the young boy. There were va...
... middle of paper ...
...d shouting coming from upstairs and then someone yelled “I’m going to kill you” then ten seconds later a loud thump hit the floor. He then stated that he saw the young boy running down the stairs and out to the streets. One of the jurors noticed that the old man was limping when he went to the stand to make his statement. The diagram of the apartment allowed the jury to act out how long it would have taken a man with a limp to make it from the bedroom, down the hallway and out the door to be able to see the boy in time. In the trial it was said that the man saw the boy fifteen seconds after the thump hit the floor. When the jury acted out the old man limping, it took a little over forty five seconds to be able to get to the door and unlock it. There was more unreasonable doubt in more of the jurors’ minds. They are inch by inch conforming to the not guilty verdict.
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.
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 event in his personal life was dramatically influencing his decision in the jury room, but he was able to overcome his personal prejudice from the efforts of juror 8 “it’s hard to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this, and no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth” This quote shows juror 8’s understanding towards juror 3 in particular, and in turn allows him to overcome his personal prejudice. The young boy’s social status and childhood upbringing also influenced many of the juror’s perspective on him. The men came with pre conceived ideas about boy, just because he grew up in a slum, and allowed this reason and possibly their own personal reason to obscure their view on the
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.
Twelve Angry Men exhibits the thought processes of twelve men that rely upon their intuitions on varying levels; some of whom check their intuition, some dismiss their intuition, and some trust it blindly. Of course, absolutism in either direction is not wise, and, in almost any case, moderation will find better results, especially in a court room. Throughout the film, various characters utilize one of these false ways of thought. However, it was characters like Juror Eight, that checked his intuition that saved the accused boy from the death penalty. This shows the power of taking your intuition in moderation and the beneficial nature that can result from doing so.
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.
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...
a) Juror Three argued that the switchblade knife was swung down and in, which was ideal for the defendant considering he was shorter than his father. Juror Three stated, “‘Down and in. That’s how I’d stab a taller man in the chest and that’s how it was done.’” (Rose 61). This quote basically accounts for Juror Three’s beliefs with handling the knife.
Social Psychology is the study of how we think and relate to other people. These psychologists focused on how the social situation influences others behavior. We see social influences everywhere we go, but might not notice it. Like when watching a movie for fun you do not notice it as much as when you are actually looking for the behaviors, like in the film The Breakfast Club. There are several examples of social psychological behaviors in the film.
Juror three wanted so badly for the young boy to be guilty that every time any of the witness’s testimonies were questioned or tested, he would not adhere to the facts. With that being said, he would only believe what everyone else beside the boy told him. When the group tested whether the old man actually heard and witnessed what he did, juror three was quick to say that he didn’t care. He didn’t care about time, logic, or reasoning. The last piece of evidence he had that justified his verdict was that the woman witnessed it. He said if all the other evidence was thrown out that last piece was all they needed. When the jury proved that she could have worn glasses and could have been mistaken, he refused to believe that there was any possibility of a mistake because that would make him have to change his verdict. Therefore, he reverted back to the other evidence then realized he couldn’t because he said to throw away the other
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.
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
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.
The old man that had testified explained that he heard the young boy say, “I’m going to kill you” and then heard the body hit the floor. They also explained that the L train was passing by at this exact time. Juror 9 then related to the old man by saying that this old man wanted attention and recognition. The old man wanted someone to listen to him and he made himself believe that he heard those things. They then started arguing on the fact that the old man said that this young boy yelled that he was going to kill his father out to the whole neighborhood and how that was highly unlikely. Juror 5 then changes his vote to not guilty. Juror 11 then questions why the boy would come back to the scene after he killed his father. Juror 11 felt like it wouldn’t have been possible that he would go back to the scene because he heard somebody scream and he was calm enough to not leave fingerprints and clean up evidence. Juror 11 then changes his vote to not