12 Angry Men

However, it isn't just the jurors' own personal prejudice that affects the way they vote. The prosecution of the boy led the jurors to believe that he was a guilty beyond all doubt. Also, the boy's representation was uninterested and uncaring. ‘I kept putting myself in the boy's place. I would have asked for another lawyer, I think. I mean, if I was on trial for my life I'd want my lawyer to tear the prosecution witnesses to shreds, or at least to try.' [Juror 8, page 14]

In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.

The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in

With this prejudice, the juror was putting a boy’s life at risk. Instead of seeing an innocent boy, he saw his son, and this was prejudice, blinding him. With no real points to defend why the boy is guilty, the juror was reminded that the boy on trial was not his son. “‘It’s not your

Each man brought their own experiences and attitudes to the case and thus, this complicated the process for Davis in all of the men seeing eye-to-eye. Some men believed that the boy was guilty simply because the jury said so. Others believed that the boy was guilty because all poor people who lived in the slums were no good and lastly, the most stubborn juror wanted to convict the boy because of personal issues he had with his son. Nevertheless, through logical arguments and an impressively calm temperament, he was able to open the eyes of all of the

Olivia Erickson Psych 3203 “12 Angry Men” The film “Twelve Angry Men” does an excellent job exemplifying many psychological processes. This compelling film featured twelve men that must decide weather or not a certain slum kid was considered guilty or innocent on behalf of a murder trial. To begin the votes, all but one decided the man was guilty. Throughout the film, heated discussions sway the minds of the men to vote not guilty.

Including from their own lives each juror has gone through a point in time were even they were stereotyped by the world. The jury has been convinced that the boy has been severely stereotyped through the whole case and court. The 3rd juror let the case come into his own life and he made his own opinion on the boy without even paying attention to detail, he reflected his own life in his argument with stereotypes (72). The lives of the jurors have all been affected by the acts of stereotyping and see the effects of it that can have on someone. A boy that at the beginning almost lost his life due to the people just looking at him was saved by the fact that the jury looked past all that.

After the twelve jurors had taken their initial vote, Juror Eight found himself to be a pariah among his associates, for simply possessing an opinion contradictory to the other 11 men in the room; breaking the pattern of unanimous voting, and declaring that he felt the accused might not be guilty. After the other jurors took turns verbally expressing their dissatisfaction with his audacious contradiction to the majority opinion, Juror Eight calmly responded: “It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (Fonda). Here lies the fundamental characteristic that renders Juror Eight a leader among his peers: his desire to consider the situation at hand to a deeper extent than what the other jurors felt was necessary. This inherent drive to face the true perplexity of the situation and submerge his consciousness under the pressure that upheld a human life ultimately led Juror Eight to shed light upon the holes in the evidence, and find an opinion worthy of acting upon. By deeply evaluating the witness’s’ testimonies, and considering the consequences of his decision, Juror Eight considered the situation before him deep within the dimensions of empathy and skepticism. The minds that can embark on such voyages through labyrinthine speculation

The movie “12 Angry Men” was about twelve male jurors, brought together in a deliberation room to decide whether a boy is guilty of killing his father. The deliberation began with an 11-1 vote for guilty. As the movie progressed, the one man who had a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the young boy, convinced the other members of the jury to question the facts ultimately leading to a unanimous vote for innocence. There were two obvious leaders in this movie, Juror number 1, the foreman and Juror number 8, the man who stood alone with a not-guilty verdict. This paper will discuss these two jurors and how they led the group to reach its goal.

“12 Angry Men” is a movie about a group of jurors whose job is to decide the guilt or innocence of an accused murder. A teenage boy is accused of killing his father, there are two eyewitnesses who claims that they have both seen and heard the murder. In the beginning of the movie, eleven of the twelve jurors vote guilty. Throughout the movie we witness a discussion where juror number 8 is able to sway the other jurors to change their mind and decide to vote not-guilty. This movie exemplifies many social psychology theories such as groupthink and conformity.

The 11th juror, a watchmaker of German background becomes infuriated at the 7th juror for not being considerate towards the accused nor the juridical system; instead he is solely concerned for the base ball tickets that are “burning a hole” in his pocket. The German feels rage towards the 7th juror for his sloppy stance towards his country; this contributes in strengthening the tension in the small room. The jury members are made up of the different socio-economic groups within America. These different backgrounds create an apprehensive atmosphere because of the hierarchy of cultures and the different social dynamics of the time. This is shown through the negative prejudice from high classed citizens to the defense of people that grew up in the working class or the “slums” like the accused. These bigotry views are explored through 4th jurors dialogue of how the “slums are breeding grounds for criminals” and how this generalization increases the probability of the boy being guilty, through the higher class’s mind. The scrutiny from the various social classes caused a tense

“I was tired of hoping for justice. When my moment came, I was ready” These are the words of a young, determined girl named Claudette Colvin, who was tired of the injustices in her society, and was ready to make a change. Claudette shared this eager desire to speak out and face injustice along with Juror #8 from 12 Angry Men. Claudette was more mature and open-minded than the rest of her peers who were consumed by superficial fixations, instead of giving their attention to the more influential and significant issues such as racism, discrimination, and stereotypes. This connects to how Juror #8 is the only one in the court case who truly rationates the case and is not only empathetic to the defendant, but he also is determined to persuade the other jurors to share his open-minded point of view on the case considering the life or death situation at steak. When one is raised in an in-just society, or placed in an in-just situation or environment, it is likely inevitable that that the person will be inclined to lose trust in humanity, which then leads to them becoming resilient, and ultimately helps them build up the courage to face the injustices and speak out.

Twelve Angry Men touches on one of the key principles of the American criminal justice system. This is the belief of the defendant being innocent until proven guilty. The idea is to give every person a fair trial that follows the rules set forth in the constitution. In Twelve Angry Men, a young man is on trial for the murder of his father. Many of the jurors jump to conclusions about the defendant’s guilt because of his lack of wealth and his ethnicity. Several of jurors make comments similar to “these people” and “kids like this” are always up to no good (Rose 24). This shows an assumption based not on the person, but on a very broad, vague, and stereotypical view. The biggest

The first case in point is of the boy on trial who is born and brought up in slums. Many of the jury members, especially jurors 10, 7, 4 and 3 are heavily influenced by the prejudices they hold against children from the slums. In one of the scenes, juror 10, goes into a rage and explains why people from the slums cannot be trusted and calls them little better than animals who gleefully kill each other off for fun. Juror 4 had earlier pointed out that slums are breeding grounds for criminals and that these slum children are a threat to our society to which 10 adds that they are “real trash”. This is where

The film “12 Angry Men” shows many social psychology theories. It shows how a group of diverse people react to a situation that no one wants to be in. This film features a group of jurors who have to decide if an accused murderer is guilty or innocent. In the beginning eleven of the twelve jurors vote guilty. Gradually, though discussions, the jurors are convinced to a not-guilty decision. Conformity Within the context of the jury room, conformity is a dangerous device. “Twelve Angry Men” shows the power of informational social influence and normative social influence. According to informational social influence individuals conform because they believe that other’s interpretation of an ambiguous situation is more important, or valid, than their own. Normative social influence is a theory that posits the cause of individual conformity due to the possibility of appearing deviant. Judging other’s interpretations of an ambiguous event often leads to conformity caused by informational social influence. This theory is applicable within the juror’s decisional processes of the “Twelve Angry Men.” Informational social influence is exacerbated by ambiguity of situation, importance of being correct, time constraints, and presence of those perceived as experts. Conformity due to social influence is portrayed within the first moments of the movie. Within the jury room, heated debate is precluded by an initial vote. This vote, taken publicly, was susceptible to normative social influence, an element of social influence, or conformity due to a fear of appearing deviant. As the jurors cast their initial vote, hesitancy is obvious in many of the eleven whom vote guilty. This timidity can be interpreted as weak conviction swayed by the guilty majority’s influence. Time constraints exacerbate informational social influence and possibly played a role in causing some of the jurors to cast guilty, conformist votes. Majority influence and social impact theory induce conformity. These theories are applicable in the jury context and are relevant to an interpretation of “Twelve Angry Men.” Social impact theory stipulates the situational and personal factors that engender conformity. Conformity is enhanced by the