12 Angry Men Act 10 Analysis

Furthermore, the jurors made significant inferences that assured them the defendant was guilty. An individual makes an inference when they conclude an argument by analyzing evidence and by applying reasoning. For instance, the broker believed that the defendant was capable of being a murderer because he grew up in a bad environment. The broker also claimed that the defendant was guilty because he bought a distinctive switch knife that was identical to the murder weapon. In addition, the messenger and the architect inferred that the witnesses’ testimonies were tangible evidence that proved the defendant did commit the crime. For example, the old man claimed that he heard the defendant yell at his father, “I'm going to kill you.” Before he saw

Juror Number Ten is falsely accusing the Kid’s ethnic group of all being bad people and his perspective is blinded by stereotypes. Juror Ten’s childhood experiences, have clouded his point of view and caused him to believe that the Kid does not deserve a fair trial. This is because Juror Ten may have witnessed

The personality of juror # 10 was one of hatefulness and anger. This juror was prejudice against the kid because he was from the slums. Juror # 10 said something in the movie about not being able to trust people who are from the slums. Juror # 10 had several outbursts and had a heinous attitude through most of the movie. Juror # 10 was the one who did most of the talking, when it came to trying to convince Juror # 8 that the kid was guilty. There was another Juror that had a roundabout same type of personality coming into the juror’s room as juror # 10. The juror # 3 was also bitter and obstinate towards the others, specifically when it came down to several of the other jurors changing their opinion of guilty to not guilty. Juror # 3 became hot headed and very loud and obnoxious towards everyone. Both Juror # 10 and juror # 3 were only looking at the eye witness testimony,

“Three: You sat right in court and heard the same things I did. The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it.”

12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a twisting story where a son is accussed of stabbing his father to death. Twelve strangers are told to listen to this court case and are then stuck in a small, hot room where they are told to decide on a verdict, whether or not the kid lives or dies. The jury finally decides on the verdict of : Not Guilty. Three major facts that influence the juries agreement that the accussed is not guilty include doubts of the murder weapon, doubts of the old man’s testimony, and doubts of the lady across the street’s testimony.

12 Angry Men is a movie centered around a murder case and the 12 men that are in charge of providing a verdict for a kid charged of first degree murder of his own father. In this movie, the characters have to face a long and grueling procedure of figuring out how to charge the kid after a six day long trial and hours long deliberation between the jurors. The film of 12 Angry Men has several key psychological aspects to it that can be accurately and summarily described.

Act three of 12 Angry Men begins with the guard walking in because he heard shouting from the jury room. The do a revote for the third time and it comes out to 6-6. Some of them think that there should be a hung jury and they vote on this and it is also 6-6. They think about the time it took to do the crime that was committed. They voted one last time and it was 11-1. So one juror still thinks that the boy is still guilty. At the end it decides to change his vote to not guilty because he starts thinking about his

12 Angry Men Summary Fucking hot in the room…say something about the environment Coach -sets the stage for the negotiation by assigning seats based on juror number -said “you fellas can handle this any way you want to, im not going to make any rules”…he should have assumed more of a leadership role from the start -showed signs of becoming a good mediator by redirecting Advertising man’s attention back to the discussion. But then, he said to HF “and we might be able to show you were you were mixed up.” -Coach offered to hand control to GO after GO called Coach a kid…caused a confrontation should have separated people from problem. Took shit too personally -did nothing when Ad man and MSO played TTT…gave up leadership role to HF

The group type presented in the film 12 Angry men appears to be a task group. Task groups typically come together to accomplish a specific charge. In this case, their task was to decide a verdict of guilty or not guilty for the boy on trial. According to our text, some feature of this task group would include those listed under the “teams” category such as appointed leadership and focus on a specific task or charge. The members’ bond is simply there interest in the task, as they have no previous relationship. The composition of the group is based on their common interest, shared purpose, and investment in community through their task on the jury. The communication style began as being relative to the task and low member self-disclosure. I believe near the middle and end of the movie the communication moved into more informal member-to-member discussion, formulation and implementation of tactics and strategies for change. We began to see higher member self-disclosure in relation to social problems – both under the teams approach. (Toseland & Rivas, 2012, p. 30)

The movie Twelve Angry Men is about the twelve jurors that could adjust their influence in a decision-making process for conviction an eighteen years-old boy, whether the boy guilty or not guilty in murdering of his father. It represents a perfect example for applicable of a work group development framework. It also has examples of influence techniques among a group’s members. This paper is looking at those specific examples in the movie and focusing in analysis the reasons why Juror 8 is so much more effective than others in the meeting.

Idealized Influence – defined by the values, morals, and ethical principles of a leader and is manifest through behaviours that supress self interest and focus on the good of the collective.

Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, is a play about a jury trying to come to a verdict that will determine whether or not a teenage boy will be put on death row.

An individual's past experiences can have an incredible impact on the way they think and behave for years to come. So, the past have a significant impact on an individual. In my own life, I have had past experiences that have affected me to be the person I am today. One example is, whenever I walked through the downtown part of Edmonton and I noticed a lot of homeless people lying around on the streets. I felt so bad for those poor people that didn’t have a place to live. They appreciate anything and everything they get. This really effects me and teaches me to be more grateful in life. And appreciate everything I have. In the play the 12 Angry Men, jurors 3, 5, and 11 prove that their experiences has affected who they are. I believe that juror 3’s family issues such as his problems with his son has affected him to become an aggressive man. Additionally, juror 5 has had a background of living in a slum all his life. Therefore, he tries to prove that not all people living in slums are criminals. Lastly, juror 11 struggles with others judging him because he is a European Refugee. This affected him by making him feel unconfident about himself and feels that the others jurors don't take his opinion too seriously.

In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, all of the characters have their own specific personalities. Jurors 1 through 12 all have gone through different life situations and come from different beginnings. On a certain level, the jurors are all connected to each other in one way or another. That would be the strength of the justice system. It brings people together that no one would have ever thought were compatible to work with each other.

Juror 10 is a closed minded older man that uses a lot of stereotypes to make his decisions on whether or not the accused is really guilty or innocent. For example, Juror 10 yells, “You said it there. I don't want any part of them, believe me” (12 Angry Men). At this point during play, he was using where the accused lived and grew up