12 Angry Men Analysis

On “Twelve Angry Men” Juror 8 refuses to believe the boy was guilty because he was justice to be done and he fight to see it. On page3 juror 8 said “ [….] Its not easy for me to raise my hand and send s boy off to die without talking about it first”. This proves that juror 8 didn’t care the decision of the others jurors because he wanted to make a difference and talk about al the facts.

Over the course of the show, juror number 8 persuades every one of the other 11 jurors to understand why he is so adamant about taking into account reasonable doubt, which in turn entices the others to change their votes from guilty to not guilty. Juror number 8 says many times throughout the show that he is not certain that the man didn't do it, he just has reason to believe that there could be a possibility that he may not have been at fault for this particular crime. All of the other jurors in the beginning of this show are stacked against him, but as he begins to explain why he has Reasonable Doubt he wins the votes of the other 11 men.

* The most influential individuals in the group were the juror who was very biased against the 18 year old boy, who’s trailed for murder. That juror discussed his thoughts in regards to a situation where

Juror number two was timid when it came to speaking his mind. At the beginning, he agreed with everyone else and voted guilty. But after a while, he was able to speak against the others and changed his vote to not guilty. Juror number three is rude, stubborn, loud, straightforward, and unmannered. He was extremely hard headed when it came to this case and he made himself strongly believe that the boy was guilty until the very end. Juror number four was extremely logical when it came to this case. Every time he spoke, he would base things on the facts rather than the ‘what ifs’. Both jurors numbers five and six were more like observers and kept an open mind to things. But juror number six had respect for his elders because when juror number 3 interrupted juror number 9, he stood up for him and asked for him to continue speaking. They talked only when they thought necessary or when spoken to. Juror number seven

The goal of the 12 jurors is to make a unanimous decision the defendant is either innocent or guilty. The jurors must make this decision based on whether the prosecutor’s evidence proved the defendant’s innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Leadership played a large role in achieving this goal. Some of these three leadership forms were

Therefore, other jurors believe that after his acts of anger, he is over the top and their trust in his thoughts begins to waver. Regardless of the majorities vote, juror three’s vote remains unchanged from guilty because of his highly opinionated attitude and prejudiced ways. Juror eight’s bigoted traits and statements eventually cause all the other jurors to leave him for juror eight’s

The classic 1957 movie 12 Angry Men delves in to a panel of twelve jurors who are deciding the life or death fate of an eighteen year old italian boy accused of stabbing his father to death. The twelve men selected as jurors are a diverse group, each coming to the table with their own socioeconomic backgrounds, personal experiences, prejudice’s, and all of this plays a role in the jurors attitudes and/or misconceptions of the accused young man. How each of the jurors, all but Juror Eight played by Henry Fonda, experiences and personalities impact their original vote of guilty is clear at the beginning of the movie with the first vote. However, from the start, Juror Eight displays confidence, and demonstrates leadership abilities utilizing

Reginald Rose’s play ‘12 Angry Men’ entirely takes place in a small New York City jury room where 12 male jurors have convened to decide the verdict in a homicide case. The verdict of this case will decide if a young boy will be charged with murdering his father, with a switchblade knife, on the first degree. The film shows us nothing of the trial itself except for the judge 's perfunctory, almost bored, charge to the jury where he reminds them that they must base their unanimous decision of “guilty” or “not guilty” on whether or not there is “reasonable doubt” in their minds as to the guilt of the accused. His tone of voice indicates the verdict is a foregone conclusion. We hear neither prosecutor nor defense attorney, and learn of the

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

Unanimity has long been considered as essential and fundamental part of jury trials. Unanimous decisions refer

All the jury must agree on a verdict, if this is not possible then the

In the beginning of the film, conflict between the jury members arise when the initial vote was taken and only one member of the jury voted that the verdict was not guilty (Juror 8). Because Juror 8 did not agree with the other jury members, Juror 12 suggested that the group should try and convince Juror 8, why they think defendant is indeed guilty. Conflict also increases when it was decided that each Juror should give a reason for why he initially voted that verdict is guilty or not guilty. In the process of discussing the reasoning behind each members vote, the preconceptions of some Jurors, namely Juror 10, lead to the conformity of other group members, namely Juror 5. During the film, miscommunication between the members leads to further misunderstanding which eventually resulted in role conflict. Simple conflict also took place when the jury members could not agree on a certain issue. Ego conflict occurred because of the group members personality disagreements.

Juror 11 thought that juror 7 voting not guilty just baseball game. However, juror seve7 actually believed the defendant was innocent and chose not to change the vote just in order to leave early. Therefore, juror 11 had a misunderstanding of juror 7 perception of the problem

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.”

Another major source of conflict is the other jurors’ disinterested approach to the trial. Almost every juror approaches Juror #8’s insistence on a not guilty vote with avoidance. They care little about the case and do not grasp its gravity,