12 Angry Men Core Values

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

This causes another juror to vote not guilty. The 11 jurors initially chose to vote guilty because they believed the young man was bad and it is morally “acceptable” or right to punish those who commit horrible crimes, like murder. They did not think about other confounding variables and whether or not to question the testimonies of witnesses and the evidence. The 11 jurors wanted to be righteous. Both attributions and stereotypes heavily influenced the jurors’ thinking into voting guilty. In regards to stereotypes, one of the defendants chose to vote guilty because the defendant grew up in a slum and the particular juror believes that all those who are born in a slum are criminals. In regards to attribution, one of the other jurors thought the defendant is guilty on the sole basis of the knife’s presence. An example of normative social influence is the juror who is sick and sneezes quite often. He mentions the comment of “There always has to be one”. This occurs when Henry Fonda’s character votes not guilty. The juror initiates this attitude and makes the particular comment in order to convince everyone else to cast the same

Over the last 60 year laws have significantly changed around the world. In 1957 New York’s penalty for 1st degree murder was the death sentence. In order for an accused to be convicted 12 jurors must come to a unanimous consensus of a guilty verdict. The film 12 Angry Men directed by Sidney Lumet and produced by Henry Fonda and Reginald Rose is about 12 jurors who are attempting to come to a unanimous decision involving an 18 year old boy who allegedly stabbed his father to death. Within the first five minutes of their deliberation 11 jurors voted for a guilty verdict; all expect jurors eight who believe that they should spend some time to discuss, before sending an 18 year old boy to die (Lumet, 1957). During the course of 80 minutes

In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.

The 8th Juror actively questions what constitutes a ‘fact’ when examining the evidence. He does this by looking at each aspect of the evidence provided and considering alternative options to the explanations given in court. When the defendant is unable to remember what movie he had seen the 8th Juror suggests that the may not have been able to remember minor details after such “an upsetting experience… as being struck in the face by [his] father”. He also questions the old man’s testimony. While many of the jurors believe the old man’s testimony is “unshakeable” Rose challenges the idea there is a lot of “circumstantial evidence” yet no concrete facts. Therefore he encourages the jurors to look from different perspectives at the witness testimonies, not just accept what they hear as being true. Many of the eyewitnesses may have been fallible and therefore should be subject to the same questioning as the defendant in

Twelve Angry Men was written over half of a century ago but still baits thought as to one’s true character. Screening the process of twelve jurors determining a young boys fate in a murder trial, the picture dissects individuals and begins to uproot prejudice and biases a few of the jurors were at first uncomfortable to admit. The 1957 MGM film Twelve Angry Men provokes thought through twelve on-screen characters by displaying their skills in empathy, personal priorities, and self-control.

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.

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

What drove juror nine and eight judgement’s of other is not to judge a person solely by their pass actions or where they come from, but with their current character. Juror eight was able change the other juror’s vote to not guilty. Juror nine made sure that vote was based off of stereotypes.The play “Twelve Angry Men” holds relevance for today, because there are negative stereotypes that can impact people's lives and result in not being judged fairly.

Including from their own lives each juror has gone through a point in time were even they were stereotyped by the world. The jury has been convinced that the boy has been severely stereotyped through the whole case and court. The 3rd juror let the case come into his own life and he made his own opinion on the boy without even paying attention to detail, he reflected his own life in his argument with stereotypes (72). The lives of the jurors have all been affected by the acts of stereotyping and see the effects of it that can have on someone. A boy that at the beginning almost lost his life due to the people just looking at him was saved by the fact that the jury looked past all that.

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.

Twelve Angry Men is a courtroom drama that was brought to the big screens in 1957. The storyline follows twelve men selected for jury duty, who are trying to reach a verdict on a young man’s trial following the murder of his father. Throughout the debates and voting, the men all reveal their personalities and motives behind their opinions. Because of all the differences of the men, their communication skills lack in some ways and are excellent in others. The three small group communication variables that I found portrayed throughout the movie were prejudice, past experience and preoccupation.

The jury that is chosen for the case all come from very different pasts, and most of them have completely different morals and values. The clash of these different views and discussing the case reveal past experiences and prejudices that some of the men have. The dynamic between past experience and prejudices fuels their arguments, but they are challenged throughout the play. Some of them had prejudices against people who live in the slums and prejudices against teenagers.

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.”

In 12 Angry Men, jurors determined if a young, poor Puerto Rican man murdered his father. Initially, eleven of the men determined that the defendant was guilty of murder; however, one juror held that the defendant was innocent, and he believed the man deserved a chance at being proven innocent. After intense debate, the jury found the defendant not guilty. Even though this movie shows evidence of prejudice, groupthink, conformity, cognitive heuristics, the catalyst of change and minority influence benefitted the jury in making a unanimous, educated decision about the fate of the young man.