12 Angry Men

Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.

The movie 12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are on jury duty. The case is on the murder of an old man, and the man's son is the suspect. It starts off with 11 of the men voting that the boy is guilty and 1 voting that the boy is not guilty. Throughout the movie, the men go back and forth restating evidence and information that was giving in court, bringing up several different possibilities, and changing their votes. In the end the men all agree that the boy is not guilty and then go their separate ways. However, there are so many clues and evidence that the boy was the one who killed the old man, he is guilty.

In Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men there is a clear juror whom swayed the others and directly expressed his ideas. He is a “gentle man...who wants justice to be done.” Juror no.8 is the hero as his initial choice to vote not guilty locks in the boy's fate of escaping a life of prison and punishment; not excluding his persuasiveness and ideology of the morality of the other jurors. Juror no.8 single handedly voted against the grain and convinced other jurors of his logical reasons ‘it’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy of to die before talking about it first’. It was heroic of him to stand out against the others and the dramatic conclusion greatly attributed to his significant factor as the vote sway from 11-1 guilty to 12-0 for not guilty. Juror no.8 helped conveyed to the other jurors the boy's innocence. Persuading jurors in a chill mannerism whist jurors 3 and 10 were angry and impatient. Over the case juror no.8 was calm and reviewed the evidence taken from the prosecution and it's flaws. Juror no.8 constantly reviewed the evidence with other jurors presenting logical

Juror #8, Davis, is a thoughtful, quiet, gentle man. This juror tries to put himself in the teenage boy's shoes to gain a better perspective of his situation.“It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth.” The man tries to see every possible side to all questions asked and constantly seeks the truth. Not only does Davis want to see justice with this case, but he will fight to voice his opinion. “The poor boy has been beaten on the head once a day every day since he was five years old!” By revealing some of his emotional

The film Twelve Angry Men which was produced in 1957, demonstrates how a jury room took place in the 1950’s. The whole film except the first few minutes of it, takes place in a jury room without air conditioning. It demonstrates how steamy and tense things can get between jurors when it comes to deliberating a case. It is apparent that the theme of this film is justice. Why should this 18-year-old boy who could possibly be innocent, receive the death penalty when he still has a whole life ahead of him? The jurors deliberated on the trial of a first-degree murder case of this young boy who was accused of stabbing and killing his father. Their opinions are expressed and all evidence is presented in order to conclude the verdict of the boy.

Because of his experiences with his own son, he learned to hate the defendant and made him a direct reflection of his own son. Juror #3 believed that one bad apple made the rest rotten as well. He built such anger and intolerance for his own son that he carried the same pre-conceived feelings and opinions as soon as he entered the courtroom. Juror #3 was the hardest to convince as he was the most irate and easily agitated of all twelve jurors. Faced with eleven others that were certain of the defendant’s innocence, he proceeded to stand his ground and disputed every single fact thrown his way, regardless if his argument made sense or not. In the end, after he saw the picture of him and his son, he realized that his enemy was not the defendant but his own son. Juror #3 recognized that his vendetta was for a cause driven towards the wrong person. After battling with his moral and ethical dilemma, he swallowed his pride and eventually voted not guilty.

Juror #8 or Davis really supported and believed in all of his decisions and thoroughly examined the evidence. Davis looked at the situation through the eyes of others, such as the young adult’s and witnesses’. Davis took to time to really evaluate and dissect all options, in which the other jurors were interested in what Davis had to say. He reached out to each juror which improved their thinking by reasonable, justified persuasion. When taking a second vote, Davis suggested that a secretive ballot takes place, which made a huge impact.

Methods of Persuasion: The methods of persuasion used in the jury session consisted of Davis’s ability to open the others’ eyes to the inconsistencies of the re-examination of the testimonies. It was a real fight to the end, because Davis could have easily given up. He begins by saying that he "only wants to talk." He sheds some light on the other jurors when he undermines the testimony of a woman who claimed to have seen the boy. Davis asserts that she could not have seen him at all because time was too short. With the time given, she had to wake up, and put her glasses. They all soon found out that there was not enough time to do so. A neighbor also claimed to have been under the house of the father who and said he heard the murder. Shortly thereafter, the man said he ran outside and saw the boy in a matter

It is apparent from the beginning of the movie that the defendant, an eighteen year old boy charged for murder, is viewed as guilty. However, there is one juror among the twelve that views this differently, Juror Eight. In fact, Juror Eight’s objection helps break the issue of groupthink, the illusion of an agreement “in order to minimize conflict, maximize cohesiveness, and reach a consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas.” (Beebe and Masterson). Juror Eight plays devil’s advocate

Synonymous with the characters of the film Twelve Angry Men, the viewer can see the diverse personalities of the twelve man jury as they worked towards the common goal of making a decision about a boy’s life; whether or not he was guilty. The men had what

The 1957 film 12 Angry Men is based around a group of twelve jurors as they decide the fate of a boy accused of murdering his father. From the very beginning the group is divided between those that think he is guilty, and those that don’t know. Every juror has their own opinion and reasoning behind their position, but there are two men that seem to become the backbones of their respective arguments. For the majority voting guilty, Juror #3 is the the critical thinker who tries to look at details and stresses the importance of the facts while Juror #8 is his counterpart on the side of voting not guilty. Both men use the most cogent critical thinking of any member of their respective sides and the

Persuasion, conformity, and minority influence are demonstrated in this movie in how the group moves from an 11-1 verdict of guilty, to a 12-0 verdict of not guilty. Persuasion is used to change another person’s attitude about something (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2013). The majority in the group thought that they were strengthening their viewpoint by giving strong and even relevant reasons to support the guilty verdict, yet by doing so they may have inadvertently weakened their case (Weaver Hock, & Garcia, 2016). The majority relies on other’s using their peripheral route to process the evidence based on the information they had heard in court. Davis, on the other hand, encourages them to use the central route to process information. He wants them to think on a deeper level and carefully about the information that had been presented to them (Kassin et al., 2013). When jurors thought more carefully about the information, they realize, one by one, that they truly did not have enough facts to give a solid guilty verdict. At first the group wants Davis to conform to their way of thinking so that they can all leave and go home. They try to change his perception so that he changes his opinion and brings it in line with the others in the group (Kassin et al., 2013). The group throws angry words and reactions toward Davis for his dissenting form the group (Heerdink, Van, Homan, & Fisher, 2015). However, Davis stays calm and never waivers in questioning the absolutes of the evidence. (Fonda et al., 2013). This unwavering and steady presence is what makes his

12 Angry Men depicts the New York murder trial. The premise is the trial of a frightened, teenaged defendant accused of stabbing and killing his father. The judge advises the 12 jurors, that a unanimous decision needs to be made with fair and unbiased manner. If the jury decides unanimously that the boy is guilty he will be sentenced to death. However, if there is a reasonable doubt, the jury needs to reach a ‘not guilty’ decision, and the boy will be freed. A life and death decision needs to be made. The process whereby the difficult decision is reached illustrates a situation where a minority transforms the opinion of a majority by exerting persuasive tactics. The group is challenged by various opinions, intense frustrations, and lack of

12 Angry Men is a 1957-drama film that tells the story of a jury’s deliberation in determining the guilt or acquittal of the defendant. All jury members are older white gentleman with strong personalities. The wide ranges of personalities tend to cause conflict and tension among the group of men. Throughout the film these men work on many consensus-building techniques but often come across difficulties during the process. Luckily, they are provided with a leader who maintains organization, order and equal opportunities for all jurors to speak. Juror one, who is also known as the foreman, is given the job of leading the jurors to come to a unanimous decision. The foreman is a smaller gentleman who seems to be impressed by the authority he has, which puts hurdles in his leadership skills.

12 Angry Men is a 1957 adaptation of Reginald Rose's original teleplay. The film takes place in a deliberation room where twelve jurors must decide the verdict of an 18-year-old who has been convicted of first-degree murder. Eleven of the twelve jurors believe the boy is guilty in what seems to be an open-and-shut case. However, juror 8 votes "not guilty" and suggests that the jury discusses the case in thorough detail. As the deliberations slowly unfold, the re-examined evidence brings the case in a different light, leading to a unanimous "not guilty" verdict by the end. The film touches on themes such as justice, prejudice, innocence, and doubt. 12 Angry Men is a powerful film because it shows the working of the American Judicial system and also emphasizes on democracy. Additionally, the film integrates social psychological concepts that can help better understand why the jurors behaved the way they did. From numerous psychological theories, the film best depicts minority influence, prejudice, groupthink, and group polarization.