12 Angry Men

‘Twelve angry men’ shows that personal experience is the strongest factor influencing human decision-making processes.’ Discuss

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,

Majority of the jury was not representative of the defendant’s peers. Most of them wanted to quickly vote guilty and punish the defendant. There were many exaggerations. Biases included where the defendant grew up, what race he was, and his age. In reality, a jury does their best to prove if the defendant is guilty or not because they are handing an individual’s life. There are biases in reality, but those are ruled out when picking out a jury. An example of groupthink in the film included when one juror, specifically the one who had a son, pressured everyone else to choose the verdict of guilty. He would ridicule those who did not agree with him. Another example of groupthink was when juror #8 threatened the juror with a son. He caused that

The 3rd juror from the drama “Twelve Angry Men” is another character that play an important role in the drama. Throughout the drama he argues hi point that the boy is guilty. To him it's clear that the boy is guilty because in a democracy you must decide based on the evidence given. In the drama “Twelve Angry Men” page 103 paragraph 82 - 83 it states “ I really think this is one of those open and shut things.” The 3rd juror is sharing his opinion that he thinks the boy is guilty based on the evidence he heard. The 3rd juror treats the accused a if he was a adult because of the crime he committed. He believes that the accused should be trialed as an adult and he receive the full punishment. In the drama “Twelve Angry Men” page 102 paragraph 75 - 76 it states “ I mean, lets be reasonable. You sat in court and heard the same things we did. The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it.” The 3rd juror is stating that in

The jurors are transformed by the process of deliberating. Eleven men voted guilty because of their prejudices, fears, laziness and insecurities, but they are eventually persuaded by reason to give up these limiting beliefs, to see the potential in the facts, and to find justice. The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8 triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors. The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by the process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men end up reconciled, and justice is done.

13) At the start the trust level was minimal. Most of them blindly voted guilty and when jury member eight pointed that out and some of them started to realize that there was a lot of distrust. I think the level of trust changed at about the half way point when the votes were beginning to tie. I think this was because some of them were realizing there was another side to this story and that it was worth listening to than simply

People's bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that

The movie “12 Angry Men” covers different negotiation and conflict resolutions. The communication is set in a jury room where people with different worldview are bargaining over the judgment of a murder case. Juror 8 is willing to stand alone with his vote “not guilty”. Trying to avoid the winner’s course, he demanded a conversation about the case despite the clear 11-1 vote on the guilt of the defendant. Juror 8 discredits his opponents’ arguments and uncovers their constraint thinking, he uncovering doubtful evidence, alienating hardliners and engaging in conversations. In the conversation it becomes obvious that not every juror bases his decision on the same facts, and

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.”

He has to agitate, pick and pull at their thoughts, hearts, and feelings to finally convince all of the eleven other men to side with him. “It is important that we look at our life and work not only from the point of view of its content but also from the question of what our actual intentions are” (Roth 197).He has doubt in his mind holding him back from voting guilty that first vote they took as they entered the back room. Honestly, without the over powering, intelligent, stubborn presence of Mr. Davis, the boy’s life would have been over. Mr. Davis took the time out of his own life, even though he was forced to be a juror that day, and he still managed to put someone else’s life before his own.

In the film something that was also important for all jurors to have is norms. “Norms is a fundamental element of social structure; the “cement of society”, because they are the group standards, they provide directions and motivation, organize social interaction, and make others people’s responses predictable and meaningful (Forsyth, p.167).” The jurors were sent to deliberate a case where they had to interact with one another, vote, and act in a professional manner. Although, those were the expectancy and norms, at certain points they got out of control and got defensive on their own opinion. However, they were some jurors that while some were getting out of control, others were there trying to calm the situation.

Within the Henry Fonda film "Twelve Angry Men", there were many occasions where the behavior and actions of the jurors were affected by numerous causes or variables. A few of these causes consist of: schemas and heuristics, memory, stereotypes or norms, and conformity. These causes or variables are able to be attributed to the sociocultural and cognitive level of analysis in psychology. Within the movie, there are twelve jurors - whose names are not given till the end – who are debating and deciding upon weather a teenaged boy should be incarcerated due to accusations of the boy killing his own father.

12 Angry Men is a 1957 American courtroom drama film adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose. Written and co-produced by Rose himself and directed by Sidney Lumet, this trial film tells the story of a jury made up of 12 men as they deliberate the guilt or acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt, forcing the jurors to question their morals and values. In the United States, a verdict in most criminal trials by jury must be unanimous. The film is notable for its almost exclusive use of one set: out of 96 minutes of run time, only three minutes take place outside of the jury room.

The play and film of Twelve Angry Men show how being in a jury requires a great deal of logic, along with the ability to look over a case thoroughly. At first, the majority of the jurors think that the boy is guilty. They all believe that there is sufficient evidence to prove it. However, juror number eight points out that there are reasonable doubts, and that there is not enough hard evidence to prove the boy guilty. Some information throughout the story is more important or major than other parts, and some information and details were changed throughout the play and the film. Even though the play and the film are similar, there are major and minor details that are changed inside of both stories that make them unique.

When at first Davis was the only not-guilty vote, the other jurors were furious demanding to know why he was the one thing keeping them in the sweltering room. He then explained why he thought the boy might not be guilty in a highly persuasive, logical, and calm manner. Then, after feeling like he was losing an uphill battle, told the men he would concede if he was still standing alone after a re-vote, but thanks to his argument he didn’t stand alone and the fight continued. The men, though maybe not at first, came to respect him for standing alone. He fought for the voiceless and one by one other’s raised theirs for the cause. At the end of the movie, juror number 3 found himself in Davis’ shoes—fighting alone for his cause. Yet, he used anger, emotion, and hate to fuel his argument and thus, was unable to win any of the men back to his side. The boy was saved because of Davis’ rational and levelheaded approach to