12 Angry Men: Jury's Conflict Involved on Verdict Essay example

Inside a room where life or death decisions are made, twelve men sit with wandering thoughts. The made up minds of some jurors are to send a boy to his death without a second thought, but one other juror may change that. Inside of the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror 8 has the persuasive evidence to change the minds of his fellow Jurors and save a boy from his execution. The other Juror’s seem like they won’t budge with their mind set on the decision of guilty, but after Juror 8 proves his thoughts on the decision of innocent, he may just be able to save a young life.

Everyone has dealt with bullies at one point in their life, but in a situation with someone’s life at stake, they can cause more damage than you can imagine. In the dramatic screenplay, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, 12 men of different backgrounds and demographics are called to jury duty to decide the fate of a suspect's life. The description of Juror 3 as a forceful, intolerant, and sadistic man strongly correlates to that of a bully. Juror 3 as demonstrated throughout the play is shown to be a bully through his speaking over others, necessity to be correct, and his aggression towards his other jurors. Juror 3 demonstrates that he is a bully by speaking over others and using his aggressive demeanor to overpower the debate.

Juror 3 also expresses the benefits of the jury system by using other jurors' perspectives to come up with a final statement. Juror 10 changed his vote and wanted to hear his opinion about the case, so the other jurors were arguing and juror 3 said “Now just listen to this man. He's the only one in the room who knows.” Juror 3 wants to hear other jurors' ideas about the case to come up with a final verdict, which is good because they use everyone's different opinions. While the jurors were arguing about what testimony was true, juror 3 said “And how

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.

First, when juror #8 acts out the scene where the old guy gets out of his room and calls for help at a specific time, he used background knowledge on what was said before Of the old guy and he used the time that was given. While in the room the

Juror 4 is able to remain calm and composed throughout the most stressful of situations. While Juror 10 exhibits racial outbursts; “They get drunk”, “That's the way they are!”, “VIOLENT!”, “These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.” Juror 4 sat through this entire scene without saying a word. It is only until Juror 10’s monologue is finished that Juror 4 speaks, calmly asking Juror 10 to “Shut [his] filthy mouth.” Juror 4 never discredits or implies anything towards the defendant and is always careful of what he says. After Juror 10’s tirade, Juror 4 tries to soften the impact created by 10; “Slums are potential breeding grounds for criminals.” He never attacks or hypes the situation at hand. He draws around ‘potential’ possibilities. Juror 4 initially had his doubts at the start of the case but was the only character that overcame his predisposition based on the analysis of facts and evidence. Rose’s character and only this character had the intelligence, confidence and persistence to keep his head in the tense moment Juror 10 created.

There are three types of conflict are shown within the film Twelve Angry Men. Pseudo, simple, and ego are the three types of interpersonal conflict displayed by the twelve jurors. In the small group of twelve jurors, each member of the jury is involved in at least one of the three types of conflict. Beginning with juror number eight, the first man to vote not guilty in the case, he was the first to start a conflict.

The setting of 12 Angry Men is a jury deliberation room where the jurors are and required to decide the guilt or innocence of an 18 year old that is accused of committing first-degree murder by stabbing his father with a switchblade knife. Witnesses were presented to give evidence of hearing a quarrel; hearing a threat to kill, and have seeing the boy run away. Another witness swore to having seen the boy stabbing his father from a window across from where the murder occurred. Eleven jurors were convinced the boy was guilty and deserved the death penalty. One raised questions he felt had not been asked or had not been pursued by the defense.

He plays the role of 'appointed leader', or the individual who is assigned the leader position from the onset. A simple man who clearly does not understand the complexity of the task that lies before him but is trying to do everything not to let anyone else find this out. He appears at ease only once during the film ' when he talks about football. He has the misfortune to be selected Foreman of the jury ' a task he clearly does not enjoy. Juror #2 is a small, quite man who is clearly unaccustomed to giving his own opinion much less to expecting his views to be of any importance. In his subdued 'observer' and meek 'information giver' role, No. 2 apparently finds comfort in his job ' he is an accountant. Juror # 3 is probably the most complex personality in the film. He starts off like a pleasant self-made successful businessman, analyzing the case impartially, explaining the arguments well and is reasonably self-assured. As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate exploding in disbelieving anger and seems somehow to be personally involved with the case. His motivation for behaving as he does is revealed when he discloses that he's not on good terms with his own son. Illusions to his animosity toward youth were made when he says that kids today have no respect and that he has not see his son in over a decade. No.3 namely plays the 'aggressive', 'dominator' and 'blocker' roles. His personal baggage with his own son 'blocked' or

For instance, when Juror 4 said to everyone regarding about a baffling conflict, “I don't see any need for arguing like this. I think we ought to be able to behave like gentlemen." (16) This shows how Juror 4 is confident and determined to resolve the case and not play around. He tries very hard to calm many jurors down instead of letting it go and think of other things, this shows that he cares about the case. Moreover, Juror 8 also shows us that he cares about the case because he thinks and tries very hard to back up his claim so that is seems believable. To illustrate, when Juror 8 tries to retort back to a claim he thinks is false, “Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment. You've heard of it." (18) This quote reveals how he is confident with his knowledge and tries very hard to think of a rebuttal against Juror 2 argument. He thinks that a rebuttal against a false statement is very important, because he doesn’t want Juror 2 to convince other people with his statement. In another example, Juror 8 exhibits how he takes the trial seriously by investigating the case in his own time, “I’m just saying it’s possible ... I got it last night in a little junk shop around the corner from the boy's house. It cost two dollars." (24). In his own time, Juror 8 tries to find a similar knife that has been used in the murder, and successful bought one. This shows how he is willing to sacrifice his own time to find evidence for the case, it shows that he cares about the case and take the trial seriously. By taking the trial seriously, it reveals how both of the jurors is a fair person and wanted to give a fair trial and justice to the

Throughout the play, juror three interrupts others in mid-sentence and attacks their opinions hoping to quash them quickly before they pollute his own flawless opinion and doubt has a chance to creep into the dark crevices of his mind. For instance, when juror eight surprises the group with a second knife, juror three is already angry, too angry. His voice rises and shakes with an animal-like ferocity. "You pulled a real bright trick here. Now supposing you tell us what you proved here. Maybe there are ten knives like that one. So what?" Not thinking that this put a dent in his case, juror eights brains have overcome the emotions of juror three.

The 1957 movie version of 12 Angry Men, brings twelve people together with different personalities and experiences to discuss the fate of a young boy that allegedly killed his father. At the very beginning, many agree that the boy is guilty except for one man. Juror #8 votes not guilty and pushes to have the evidence talked through. After reviewing all the evidence carefully, the tables turned from guilty to not guilty. Each juror brought different experiences and personalities to the jury room. The two that were forceful with their opinions and their reasonings to decide either way we're jurors #8 and #3.

In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.

During the course of the debate within the jury room Juror #8 summarizes the evidence presented and the conclusions drawn by his fellow jurors, by asking questions. He analyzes the content, by breaking down the component parts and analyzing each

When placed in a group with different personalities, you have to find a way to work and communicate effectively as a team; of course you’ll find yourself stuck at times because of certain barriers such as the lack of communication between members. However, group members have to find the ability to work together as a team. In the film “12 Angry Men,” we see a group of jurors who have to decide whether the defendant has committed the crime or is presumed innocent throughout a capital murder trial. As the audience, we witness how challenging it was for the jury to deliberate on a verdict and come to a true consensus because of the different personality role, and negotiation strategies. Specifically, I found six jurors