12 Angry Men Groupthink Analysis

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 movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in

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

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

In the film, 12 Angry Men, the chosen jury panel was far from what we would consider today to be “representative of the community.” As we saw in the film, a jury non-representative of its peers can provoke prejudice and indifference in the trial process. The jury panel in 12 Angry Men consisted of all white men who were all middle-aged with the exception of two elder fellows. The defendant in this case was a young, Puerto Rican male. Before deliberation, the jurors took an initial vote count to see which men were leaning toward a verdict of guilty, and which ones were leaning to vote not guilty. The count was 11 to 1. Only one man was reasonable and brave enough to challenge the majority, and presume the boy’s innocence. From the very beginning, a more diverse jury could have remedied this imbalance. It is a concern that a jury consisting of all white members

Marshall). Juror 4 never allowed any emotion to influence his decision and remained calm and logical throughout the deliberation. For a large portion of the movie, Juror 4 kept the plea of guilty. This was due to one unshakeable fact: a woman had seen the defendant stab his father through the window of her apartment. Juror 4 believed that even if all other evidence was thrown out, the woman had still seen the boy kill his father and he was, therefore, guilty.

But that statement made the third juror made saying he’d kill the 8th juror, but earlier in the play that’s exactly what the boy said to his father hours before the killing, and to the audience it shows how things can be used as an exaggeration. So, once that happens the votes are tied. Juror 8 now breaks apart the fact that the boy couldn’t remember the movies he supposedly saw, but says in that kind of state of trauma it could be difficult. They also discuss how the murderer used a switchblade the wrong way, and that there was no way that the boy would use it the wrong was as he was very experienced. Juror 8 goes on and sees if it was also actually possibly for the other witness (the woman) to actually see the murder. They test it as well and find it also highly unlikely that she put on her glasses in time enough for her to see. So, all that’s left on the “guilty” verdict is 10 and 8, and 10 changes his verdict to “not guilty” after being quickly shut down about his comments. So, now that only 8 is left, they have a somewhat difficult time convincing him, but he does change his verdict to “not guilty”. The story ends with the rain stopping and the knife still sticking in the

In the movie there was an allegation that a young boy had killed his father. The neighbor claimed to have woken up in the middle of the night, looked through the windows of a passing el train just in time to see the boy stabbing his father. Another neighbor stated that he heard the son scream “I’ll kill you”, heard the father’s body hit the floor, and made it to his front door just in time to see the boy running away from the scene. The neighbors “saw” and “heard” the incident, so to most of the jurors, being the realist that they are, they had no choice to believe the murder to be true. Davis, Juror eight, had an entirely different way of thinking.

After hours of thorough deliberation the jury chose the verdict of not guilty for the boy who was accused of the premeditated homicide of his father. Now the problem was if the boy didn’t do it then who did? There had to be justice for both the father who was killed and for his son who was accused. All of the evidence pointed to the boy no other suspects were even thought of. At first the key pieces of evidence made the jury believe the boy was guilty but after the eighth juror changed everyone’s perspective on the matter, the evidence made the jurors believe there was no way the boy could’ve committed the

Conformity due to social influence is portrayed all through the movie. The first vote was taken publicly, and was susceptible to normative social influence, an element of social influence, or conformity due to a fear of appearing deviant. As the jurors voted the hesitation to vote guilty was apparent on most faces. According to Informational Social Influence, individuals conform because they believe that others interpretations of a situation that they themselves are not sure of is more valid and thus correct. As the discussion continues through the afternoon more information about the case is

Group dynamics are the various behaviours and psychological processes that occur in a group or between groups. It deals with the formation, functioning of groups as well as the roles each individual plays in a group. Group dynamics can be studied and understood from the movie ‘ 12 Angry Men ’. Different concepts regarding group dynamics like influence processes, influence techniques, group development and stages, effect of the environment, backgrounds of the individuals etc. were well portrayed in the film.

Have you ever been accused of something that you didn’t do?  Or even have others gang up on you because of your opinion on something.  There are so many people in the world who want justice and will do anything to get it.  This movie took place in New York city in a court a house.  The story is told in third person limited.  The judge will have to decide if a young puerto rican boy who is 18 years old, is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. First it begins as an open and shut case of a murder.  Although it soon becomes a detective story, a bunch of clues start to appear creating doubt about the case.  At first 11 of the 12 jurors are quick to vote that he is guilty.  The remaining juror seems skeptical about the evidence and facts.  Later on in the movie, more jurors started to vote not guilty.  All the jurors went over the evidence but a lot of it didn’t make sense. So as they kept investigating, more clues and assumptions began to appear.  Then when they took a couple more votes, it eventually came down to twelve not guilty and one guilty.  After the one juror started to get mad and didn’t have enough evidence to prove the boy guilty, he had no choice but to vote not guilty. This then makes the vote twelve not guilty, meaning the boy won’t be executed.

The film “12 angry men” I chose to write about provides multiple points that can be compared to things we have learned in sociology which we can take from this movie. This relatable, reality-based film, features a group of jurors who have to make a choice over whether or not someone is guilty or innocent of an accused murder. At first, eleven of the twelve jurors vote guilty. Over time, through heated discussions, the jurors are swayed to the decision of not-guilty(Rosen, 2016). Upon research, this film highlights sociology ideas in areas such as conformity, social inequality, ingroup and outgroup, groupthink among other examples.

The film, 12 Angry Men, also looks at the flaws in the American justice system. A strong flaw they press very strongly is how prejudice can and will always take a place in the courtroom to some varying degree. Although the voir dire process is meant to help eliminate jurors who would have biases towards the case, it can’t eliminate all jurors who can’t separate the facts from personal beliefs and that’s very dangerous for the defence. In the film it became evident that a man was voting guilty purely on the basis that the defendant was raised in the “slums” and he had an already constructed bias which he used to judge the case. The film also raises the issues with jurors that aren’t committed to the jury process, although may grow to want to leave

As he tries to sway the majority group of reconsidering the decision, he showcases many methods of persuasion in which the rest of the group are challenged to the point that they start rethinking their decision. In light of this, Juror 8 utilizes the method of consistency wherein he stays firm to his stand in order to show his reliability in matter of adjudging not guilty. This consistency is seen to be effective because through this, the majority group eventually becomes the minority. As dissenters from the original majority’s vote increase, amplification is another significant method of persuasion that is used. This tactic happens when information and analysis are continuously amplified to heighten the relevance of a specific concept (Friestad & Wright, 1994). This is showcased by the minority jurors through the step by step presentation of details. As one detail of the case comes up, another is added which heightens the relevance of considering the verdict of not guilty. Aside from consistency and amplification, conversion is also seen as a major persuasion method. This technique is focused on presenting a deliberate desire to convert an original decision. Juror 8 uses this in calling for an anonymous vote; he obviously tells the other jurors that there is a need to reconsider, and he backs this up with his expertise on the matter. All the persuasion methods used by the minority group were seen to be effective because this caused the minority to be the majority, and in the end, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty. It should also be noted how all these methods are incorporated with each other which paved the way for the effectiveness of the minority group in swaying the majority group’s original