The film “Twelve Angry Men” exhibits many sociological processes. The film features twelve jurors who have to come to a unanimous decision on whether a young boy from the slums is innocent or guilty in the case of murder. At the beginning of the film eleven of the twelve jurors vote guilty. Slowly, through deliberation, reenactment of the case details, and arguments, the twelve jurors vote non-guilty in the case of murder. Upon examination, the film highlights sociological processes in areas of conformity, stereotypes, prejudice, and confirmation bias.
The first sociological process seen in the film is conformity. “Conformity occurs when a person changes his or her behavior or attitude to make it more similar to the behavior or attitude of a group” (p.168-Encyclopedia). Individuals conform because of normative influence and informational influence. Normative influence occurs when individuals want to fit in the group and do not want to go against the norms of the group. Informational Influence “occurs when individuals valid evidence is presented about reality” (p.290-copies).
Conformity due to normative influence reveals itself from the beginning of the film. After the trial adjourns the twelve jurors come together in a hot small room and take a preliminary public vote by a show of hands. Eleven jurors vote guilty and juror #8 votes not guilty in the case of murder. Normative influence was showed by several jurors who seemed hesitant and apprehensive of their vote, but gave into the norms and pressures of the group and voted guilty. Specifically, you can see the normative influence having an impact on juror #9 and his decision. As the jurors rose there hands the camera zooms out allowing you a complete view of all the jurors voting...
... middle of paper ...
...s not sufficient evidence that he committed murder. We all have personal opinions that can be dangerous and it is important to not generalize as we see in the film. Prejudiced is embodied by juror 3 and juror 10. Juror 3 prejudices come from his personal relationship or lack there of with his son who he has not seen in two years. He views young boys through the distorted view of how he views his son. Juror 10 portrays individuals who are prejudiced against people who come from the slums. “You can’t believe a word they say().” I mean they’re born liars (movie).” Juror 10 prejudices reach all time high during his long angry speech near the end of the film against “these people” in reference to people from the slums. In juror 10 eyes this trial is an opportune time to get rid of one of “them” by finding the boy guilty, even though this is suppose to be a fair trial.
There are quite a few specific factors that affect whether the minority can influence the majority’s opinion. For example, when Juror #9 becomes an ally of support for Juror #8 in his defection from the majority consensus. Although Juror #8 may have started with only one ally, gradually he gained support from other jury members. Another important factor in the power of minority influence (Myers, 298) is the consistency of the viewpoint. Juror #8 never ‘flip-flops’, proponents of the minority position must stand firm against the pressure to conform. Even when Juror #8 is taunted by his fellow jurors after voting not-guilty in the initial vote he stands firm on his position and resists the pressure to conform. Furthermore, high self-confidence and self-assurance improves the position of the minority. Juror #8 presented firm and forceful arguments without being overbearing. He justifies his not-guilty vote by saying, “I just think we owe him a few words, that's all.” In the film, there is also a point in the discussion where Juror #6 defends those who voted not-guilty from the bullying, shouting, and name-calling from the other jurors. Throughout the film, Juror #3 is a bully, a specific example of insulting nature it seen in the film when another not-guilty ballot is received and he attacks Juror #5. He shouts, “Brother, you really are somethin'. You sit here vote guilty like the rest of us, then some golden-voiced preacher starts tearing your poor heart out about some underprivileged kid, just couldn't help becoming a murderer, and you change your vote. Well, if that isn't the most sickening - *why don't you drop a quarter in his collection box?” his criticisms of the other jurors does not sway people to his side. In reality, when a minority gathers strength people feel freer to think outside the box without the fear
In the play Twelve Angry Men, a tough decision rests in the hands of twelve jurors as they discuss whether or not a minor is guilty of murdering his father. What is originally seen as a very black and white case becomes more complicated when the jurors begin to question if the evidence is enough to convict and execute a teenage boy. In particular, the author, Reginald Rose, includes a juror who unequivocally believes that the defendant is guilty. We soon find out that Juror 3 harbors a grudge against his own son, who ran away years ago. Juror 3's convictions are not fueled by the case's evidence, but instead by his want for revenge.
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.
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 theme of Bias is very strong. The vote is 11 to 1 in a murder trial of a 16-year-old boy charged with stabbing and killing his father. Without any discussion eleven jurors presumed the defendant is guilty. Did the defendant’s racial bias, class bias, confirmation bias, play a role in their decision?
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.
The play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, written by Reginald Rose, explores the thrilling story of how twelve different orientated jurors express their perceptions towards a delinquent crime, allegedly committed by a black, sixteen-year-old. Throughout the duration of the play, we witness how the juror’s background ordeals and presumptuous assumptions influence the way they conceptualise the whole testimony itself.
These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...
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...
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.
Juror 10 spoke of his prejudices by stating a fallacy of composition (Pope 2003) that he had lived his whole life amongst people like the accused and assumed he knew exactly the kind of people they all were. After being confronted the first time, Juror 10 still held onto his prejudice opinions as a means to his guilty verdict. It wasn’t until the near ending of the film that Juror 10’s prejudices became evident to himself. This is the second incident that happened after the vote where 9 jurors voted not guilty and 3 voted guilty. It happened during his speech about the defendant and the ‘dishonest’ people from the slums, how they don’t value life and how murdering someone is more of a sport to them.
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
12 ANGRY MEN, is basically a story play written for broadcast on CBS in 1954 by an American playwright Reginald Rose. In 1957, Rose finished the screenplay for the movie version, which was co-produced by him and Henry Fonda (Juror#8). The movie was directed by Sydney Lumet. This movie was nominated for many awards like Academy awards for Best Picture, Best Director and Best writing, Screenplay based on Material from another Medium, and an Edgar Allan Poe Award for Best Motion Picture Screenplay from Mystery Writers of America.
576). In 12 Angry Men, the jury that is voting is a death-qualified jury and all but one wants to convict. They are more prejudiced towards this Hispanic boy who could very well be innocent. In Young’s (2004) study, he proved that death-qualified juries were more likely to have prejudiced views of minorities that they are more willing to convict. In this study, he took a poll that resulted in the death-qualified juries saying that it is worse to let the guilty go free than to convict an innocent person. In both the film and Young’s (2004) study, it is shown that death-qualified juries are very quick to convict when they have someone’s life in their