12 Angry Men Analysis

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.

Identify the dysfunctional and functional properties of the group in the film as they pertain to the problem the group is working on.

* 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

My initial vote in the Reginald Chase case was of not guilty. According to my perception, the evidence presented was not enough to convict him of murder. Vast majority of the group “A” members were inclined to acquit Chase for the same reason. The deliberation turned out interesting and somehow tense when one of the jurors decided to vote guilty. Although many group members tried to make him reflect on his decision presenting strong arguments, this seemed to irritate him and cling to his decision. However, the votes and arguments of the majority reinforced my final decision of not guilty.

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,

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

In act two, Juror Eleven includes a remarkable statement about strength and fairness in decision-making. Eleven states, “…we have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the reasons in why we are strong. We should not make it a personal thing” (Rose 333). Since Juror Eleven was a refugee from Europe, he shows that since he finally is able to disagree or share his opinion, that it should not affect the outcome of

In the 1957 MGM film, Twelve Angry Men, a young boy from the slum is on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. The jury from New York City is forced to have 12 men agree as to whether the boy is guilty or not guilty. If they decide not guilty, the boy is set free; if he is found guilty, the boy will receive the death sentence. In the beginning all but one agreed the boy was guilty; Juror 8, Mr. Davis, argues that the boy deserves some deliberation. Mr. Davis changed the other eleven jurors’ minds by using his core values such as keeping an open-mind, staying humble, and believing every life is valuable.

Recently in my AP English class, we watched The film “Twelve Angry Men”. The film was unique in the fact that it only had one setting, the Jury Room. The film showed no one else but the jurors and the warden, who all remained completely nameless throughout the entire movie and we're only identified by their juror numbers. The jurors were drastically different which I believe added more diversity and made the plot more complex and intriguing to the audience. I don't believe the film had a specific intended audience, I believe that this show can be appreciated by all audiences because it shows that reasonable doubt is a much easier state of mind then certainty.

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

The jurors had come to value a case based on facts, not prejudice or stereotypes. Those who upheld this value (Juror 8 and the Juror 4) were respected and became leaders that were looked to for guidance. The jurors that maintained arguments based on stereotypes alienated themselves from the others.

Another very important juror in the jury room was Juror 9. Juror 9 was a fair man. He voted not

I want to hear more. The vote in ten to two,” (Rose 25). As you can see, Juror #8 changes his vote to “Not Guilty”, even though he thinks it's wrong, but it’s for the right reason because he is giving his support to Juror #9, who feels strongly about the defendant being innocent even though there was a murder. This shows that Juror #8 cares about justice and is willing to stand up against a crowd to do what he thinks is right. At the end of the deliberation, the vote is 11 for not guilty and 1 for guilty, and Juror #3 stand alone. The 8th and 4th Jurors both make a short and final plea, and the 3rd Juror finally concedes, saying, Alright, Not Guilty,” (Rose 63). Furthermore, Juror #3 strongly believes that the defendant is guilty, but he has to vote not guilty, because it is the right decision even though he believes it is wrong. Juror #3 votes not guilty because even though he thinks the decision is wrong, because it is not easy to send off a boy to die when the vote is 11 guilty and 1 guilty. This shows that Juror #3 is doing something right and voting ¨Not Guilty¨ which was against his wishes. In conclusion, Juror #3 and #8 both make conscious decisions supporting what is right even though, in someway, they thought the defendant was guilty.

Juror #8, Davis, is a thoughtful, quiet, gentle man. This juror tries to put himself in the teenage boy's shoes to gain a better perspective of his situation.“It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth.” The man tries to see every possible side to all questions asked and constantly seeks the truth. Not only does Davis want to see justice with this case, but he will fight to voice his opinion. “The poor boy has been beaten on the head once a day every day since he was five years old!” By revealing some of his emotional

Also during this storming process, Juror #8 was aware of all the opposition he was facing with his not guilty vote, and realized he needed to take the role of taking charge in opening up dialog to discuss the case. In this power struggle, he influenced some of the other Jury members by bargaining. Bargaining is a tool used to offer an exchange. He used this tool to convince others to discuss the case by giving them a choice. He presented them with a 2nd vote in which he would exclude himself from, and if all remaining voters still believe the boy is guilty of murder, he would conform to the mass vote, end the case and send the boy to the electric chair. But if not, they will take more time to deliberate and open a genuine discussion of the case. The 2nd vote turned Juror #9’s vote from guilty to not guilty, and Juror #8 was successful in his bargaining