12 Angry Men Ethics

Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.

12 Angry Men are in a 1950’s courtroom, where 12 men from various backgrounds and different personalities, find themselves deciding the fate of a teenage boy accused of murdering his father. The vote must be unanimous, with a guilty verdict resulting in the death of the young man facing trial. Juror #8, (Fonda), was not the assigned jury leader, but emerged as the primary leader within minutes of the group sequester, when juror #8 was the only no vote. Fonda’s situation allowed his leadership traits to apply with success. Fonda’s leadership was due to his ethical need for a jury decision. Fonda’s character combines his goal of having a fair deliberation concerning the young man accused of murder (task Behavior). Fonda was trying to help the eleven other jurors to feel more comfortable with thinking critically and to examine the facts closely (relationship behavior). Now that I have discussed the behavior traits of the two movies, we will discuss the Trait approach in leadership.

In the film 12 Angry Men, a group of twelve jurors are deciding the fate of a young boy accused of murdering his father. Throughout the juries dilleration, one man exhibits all of the qualities of leadership. This man is juror number 8 played by Henry Fonda. Fonda not only exhibits the the 10 qualities of a leader but he uses these qualities to lead the entire jury to a vote of not guilty (Fonda & Lumet, 1957).

Juror 8 had many chances to change his opinion about the boy’s case, and yet he never did. Throughout this whole play, Juror 8 stood his ground and was

The film uses juror three to demonstrate how past experiences can influence ones prejudice in decision making. Juror 3, who has a prejudice against the accused, and thinks the kid is under-privileged and doesn’t deserve a second chance, which is reason enough for him to conclude the accused is guilty. As the discussion continues as to the verdict of the trial, juror three grows frustrated and angrily refutes, “What is this? Love your under- privileged bother week or something? (12 Angry Men). Due to his past experiences with young men, he is ready to sentence the defendant to death with weak circumstantial evidence, grows angry as the other jurors question what he refers to as “facts” and claims “You can’t refute facts” (12 Angry Men) As all the Jurors except juror twelve get more and more frustrated by the slowed process, juror three begins to see through his prejudice, and disperses the other jurors interruptions by saying “Be quiet, we’ll all get a turn”(12 Angry Men). It finally becomes clear, he sees similarities with his son he had a falling out with several years ago, and puts this prejudice aside and excepts that the evidence is too circumstantial to convict a kid for murder, and sentence him to death.

Unlike Juror 3 Juror 8 is open and even welcomes others’ opinions. He was the only one to vote not guilty at the beginning of 12 Angry Men. He was not an appointed leader and throughout the course of this film he develops into an emergent leader. Juror 8 uses democratic leadership as he focuses on serving the needs of someone else and pointing out the severity of the issue they are deciding on and that a life is at stake. A democratic leader “understand(s) that these challenges are being made to present all sides of the issue and arrive at a better answer” (Kraemer, 2011). Juror 8 wants people to talk it through and make sure they have properly evaluated every side of the reason for being guilty or innocent and a just decision is made. He used

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.

It is the juror's responsibility to prove the boy guilty or not. Many of these jurors applied their biases to the way the boy grew up and was treated throughout his life. They have created false accusations that are not necessarily accurate. They argue that teenagers his age have no sense of morality or respect for their elders. Which could be a justifiable reasoning for the murder of his own father. Juror Three appears to be prejudiced towards the boy due to the fact that his own son resented him and moved out. It is not uncommon to develop an explicit bias after generalizing impressions from a personal experience and applying that to all groups of that kind such as age, religion, etc. As Juror Eight votes not guilty during a vote, the third juror becomes infuriated and disagrees while ranting about how the defendant is completely guilty due to evidence. Two different categories came into play as Juror Three expressed his feelings about his own son relating to the boy on

In this novel, twelve jurors are designated to choose the verdict of a case. A sixteen-year-old boy is accused of murdering his father. If the jurors’ verdict is guilty, then the boy will receive a death sentence. The chosen jurors are locked in a room to decide the verdict, guilty or innocent. At the beginning, only one juror chose to vote not guilty, for the sake of reasonable doubt. The juror made thought out points and persuasively changed all other other jurors minds. By the end, all jurors chose to vote not guilty, except one. This particular juror voted guilty because he compared the defendant to his own son, whom he had problems with. This prejudice blocked his mind, making him confuse facts with his own judgment.

In Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men there is a clear juror whom swayed the others and directly expressed his ideas. He is a “gentle man...who wants justice to be done.” Juror no.8 is the hero as his initial choice to vote not guilty locks in the boy's fate of escaping a life of prison and punishment; not excluding his persuasiveness and ideology of the morality of the other jurors. Juror no.8 single handedly voted against the grain and convinced other jurors of his logical reasons ‘it’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy of to die before talking about it first’. It was heroic of him to stand out against the others and the dramatic conclusion greatly attributed to his significant factor as the vote sway from 11-1 guilty to 12-0 for not guilty. Juror no.8 helped conveyed to the other jurors the boy's innocence. Persuading jurors in a chill mannerism whist jurors 3 and 10 were angry and impatient. Over the case juror no.8 was calm and reviewed the evidence taken from the prosecution and it's flaws. Juror no.8 constantly reviewed the evidence with other jurors presenting logical

In the drama Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, juror 8 does a good job in persuading the other jurors to listen and reconsider the evidence. He uses his rhetorical appeals to captivate the other jurors attention. He gains an authority towards the other jurors which makes them trust him more. Juror 8 deconstructs the testimony and evidence with his rhetorical appeal to make the other jurors consider the innocence of the defendant.

Initially, Juror 8 stands alone during the first vote. For clarification, he doesn’t cower and change his initial vote when he notices that all the other people in the room are against him. Eight didn’t succumb to peer pressure and made it his duty to ensure everyone else sees what he does. Second, Juror 5 changed his vote from “guilty” to “not guilty” because he realised how much the accused has in common with his own upbringing. For instance, both of them grew up in the slums and were often negatively stereotyped. People tend to agree with others if they find something that they have in common. Lastly, Juror 11 called Juror 7 out for misusing his freedoms as an American citizen and his responsibilities as a Juror of the court. Being that Juror Seven only changed his vote because he had tickets to a play, Juror 11 was enraged, mainly because not everyone has the same opportunities as they do at the moment. When Juror 11 lived in Europe, he never had opportunities like this so he was taking it seriously, especially because the life of someone else was in jeopardy. Quite often literature mirrors real life, as is the case with the recent shooting in Las Vegas when complete strangers risked their own safety or put their own lives on hold to help when others were in

Juror 11 is a refugee from Europe. He is a watchmaker who speaks politely and deeply appreciates his democratic rights and freedoms and has no tolerance for those that don’t. He respects process, and wants others to do what is right. For the most part he is controlled in his emotions and we only really see him get fired up when juror 7 wants to change his vote simply to hurry the process so that he can make the baseball game for which he has tickets. He is disgusted that someone would not take their role seriously especially when a boy’s life is at stake. He pushes hard at the juror and demands that he explain why he changed his vote. He speaks with such conviction that seven

Taking other juror's characters into consideration, Jury number 2 and Jury number 12 are a complete contrast to Jury number 8. They both are hesitant in taking their stance. Especially Jury number 12 repeatedly changes his decision depending on what the aggressive members were wanting him to say. Jury number 3 was the most aggressive of all the 12 men. There was something not-so-appealing-yet-very-interesting about his personality. He was so single-minded that he not only disagreed to what others said, but was also willing to ask them to shut up and just say “guilty.” His aggressive behavior gives us a reason to think that he might have a bad relation with his son, which he actually had and reveals the story at the end. Jury number 7 has a completely different approach. He wants the discussions to end soon because he has got more important things to do in his life rather than having a look at the evidence's that could help to save someone's life. According to Benne and Sheats Functional Group Goals, Jury number 7 is an example of a deserter. Deserter is a person who withdraws from the group; appears “above it all” and bored or annoyed with the discussion; remains aloof or stops contributing ( Engleberg and Wynn 55). A deserter can also be called a self centered person. Jury number 8 seems an initiator-contributor, who proposes ideas and suggestions; provides direction for the group; gets the group

Psychology tends to be a difficult Human Science due to the varying natures of the human mind. Every brain is both unique and not, and varying theories attempt to explain why humans come to different conclusions. But are these conclusions valid? How is it possible that, given access to the same facts, there are disagreements between experts in various disciplines? People will resort to different meanings and sections of a certain area of knowledge and fall upon which they stand behind, such as morality or legality in a court case. Some may feel that people simply interpret the given facts differently with different ways of knowing. Observers will get different results with reason than they will with emotion as they are used for different reasons.