12 Angry Men Summary

It demonstrates that most people put their personal feelings when it comes to trials like these. Even though there are people that will say that they are not racist or

The storming stage began with conflicting opinions being stated. Tense conversation ensued regarding Juror No. 8’s “Not Guilty” vote and Juror No. 10’s discriminatory remarks. The norming stage showed Juror No. 1, the jury foreman, keeping Jurors No, 11 and 12 on topic to create a productive discussion. In addition, Juror No. 12 suggests discussing views one person at a time. Personally, I do not believe there was a true performing stage in the film. Although they achieved some cohesion during the norming stage, they were still confrontational and were not unified. The adjourning stage showed the characters finally coming to an agreement on a “Not Guilty” verdict, giving that verdict to the bailiff, and all leaving separately.

The Constitution guarantees the right to trial by an impartial jury. Impartiality is the principle holding that all parties should be subject to equal treatment under the law. Being impartial requires jury members to reach a decision based on the evidence presented. The chosen jury must be unbiased, and capable of weighing out the evidence objectively. In order to counter bias, The Supreme Court established a rule that the selection of jurors must be from a pool representative of a cross-section of the community.

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.

The movie "12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury's decision on a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin decisions on the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused of stabbing his father to death, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis' bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a

To start it off, we have juror number 2. Juror number 2 is a very hesitant man who doesn't have an opinion on his own. He is very quiet and doesn't have much to say. During the story he constantly kept changing his mind whenever the last person spoke. “Well, sure, I've heard of it. I know what it is. I . . . what I meant . . . well, anyway, I think he was guilty.” (Juror 2) This quote is the juror thinking he was guilty in the beginning but later on he changes his mind. His past experiences have influenced his opinion on the

According the five Methods for Influencing Other Group Members - use of reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values, and bargaining - when Juror Eight said: “we are talking about somebody life here, we can’t just decide within five minutes, suppose we are wrong”, he used the youth human-being life’s important and the danger of a false decision as good reasons to force other jurors in analyzing the facts carefully. He then talks about the boy’s backgrounds for appealing to logic and rational thinking of other jurors. Juror Three was overt prejudice, hostility, and used “assertiveness” to influence the other ten jurors of jury provided an antagonist for juror Eight. Juror eight used “coalition building” method to seek alignment with other group members. He never says that he believes the defendant is innocent but his mantra throughout the movie was “it’s possible!” referring to the reasonable doubt, which he convinced others’ thought. Juror Eight continued to appeal other eleven juror’s higher values by repeatedly reinforcing their moral and judicial obligation to convict only if there was no reasonable doubt. He challenged each juror to look at the facts more thoughtfully. “Bargaining” is offering an instrument exchange. Juror 8 used this method when he said: “I want to call for another vote… If there are 11 votes for guilty, I won’t stand alone… But if anyone votes not guilty, we stay here and talk it out.”

You can tell that some of the jurors is looking around to see what the other jurors are voting. When they later votes anonymously, some of them do not comply. Joseph Sweeny switches his vote once the voting is private. This is a strong proof of how there was pressure to conform to the majority.

Juror number 8 just vote for the first time “not guilty” as the juror 1 (the president of the assembly) ask “what do we do now” he answered “I guess we talk”. That can be a collaborative management as he wants to explain why he voted that. But the juror 3 gets mad because he is the only one who voted no. He talk to him in an aggressive way, and do not seem to respect his position, because he wants to be right; Juror 3 is more competitive because he has a firm stand and he knows what he wants “he stabbed his own father, 12 inches in the chest, they proved that...”. On the same scene, jurors 11 are asking him question on why he disagree. They are more on the collaborative than juror 3 because they do try to understand his position even if they

First degree murder is the charge the vote must be twelve to zero either way. Eleven to one is the results of the first vote by the jury in the movie 12 Angry Men. The jury is to decide if an 18 year of boy is guilty of first degree murder. If he is found guilty is will be sent to the chair. In the movie 12 Angry Men the actor that plays Mr. Davis used his core values of finding the truth, kindness, and the belief that every life matters to make the jury study the details of the case.

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.

12 Angry Men is an example of the role cinematography can play in creating the atmosphere of a film. This film is set almost entirely in one room, but is still able to construct extreme tension like few other films have been able to do. It establishes this partly through the brilliant dialogue and fiery performances of its twelve actors, but also through powerful use of cinematography that helps in creating the gradually-festering atmosphere of the film.

Group Conflict (2016) claims that struggles in communication are important, impactful and healthy. Team members find themselves in conflict for several reasons. There is disagreement that arises from miscommunication. In the case of 12 Angry Men, there are jury members who ultimately have the same views. However, issues with communication lead to miscommunication that results in a complete breakdown. When members of a team or jury are not effectively communicating their message, it is impossible for the message to be clearly relayed.

Twelve Angry Men does quite a fantastic job of setting up a hypothetical situation in which the audience is exposed to quite a well developed plot that entails an interesting metamorphosis of character between the twelve jurors. At first glance, it would be easy to want to condemn most of the men as immoral, however taking into account Hursthouse's three core ideas of virtuosity many of the men exhibit these traits once critical thinking finally takes hold over their judgment. All three core ideas can be seen by a vast majority of the jurors and thus will examine how the following traits come to manifest: “the right thing to do is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstance”, “a virtuous person is one who has and exercises the virtues”, and “a virtue is a character trait that a person needs in order to have eudaimonia” (Jacobus 402) . Conversely, one character in particular will push against these morale codes, at least until the bitter end.

Throughout the film, 12 Angry Men, the jury can be seen going through Tuckman’s five stage model of development a theoretical model that describes how groups change over time. Each stage is marked by a different processes and characteristics that can be seen throughout the duration of the film. The jury does not adhere to each stage in the strictest sense but does loosely go through each stage. Noticeable through the progression of the film, the forming stage is short and the storming stage seems to occupy most of the space of the film; followed by shorter norming, performing and finally adjourning phases.