12 Angry Men: Movie

1698 Words Apr 30th, 2008 7 Pages
12 Angry Men In a world where the jury is the voice of the people's justice, twelve men sit in a room poised to determine the fate of one boy's life. Did he do it? If he didn't, who did? Why would a young man kill his beloved father with a switchblade knife? The moment that the jury-comprised of twelve Caucasian men, abhorrent in today's society-entered the small, blank, bleak room, they had already come to the conclusion that the young man was guilty as charged without deliberation. One lone man stood his ground and had the guts to stand up to the others and profess that he believed the man could not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt due to conflicting information. How could he prove it?
Through verbal and nonverbal
…show more content…
He became incredulous and demanded that the juror who made the statement to revise what he said and recognize that not all individuals from the slums are criminals. This is a prime example of profiling.
Oral communication has played a huge factor in the deliberations in the jury room. Up to this point each juror has conveyed his belief through speech. “A verbal message can be conveyed and a response received in a minimal amount of time. If the receiver is unsure of the message, rapid feedback allows for early detection by the sender and, hence, allows for early correction” (Judge, 371) Some jurors were eloquent in the way they relayed their reasonings to the others, and some were very loud and abrupt and had little evidence to support their beliefs but relied purely on prejudices, biases, and ignorance in an effort to get a quick response. These jurors also used this opportunity to elicit any responses or feedback or make corrections to others’ reasonings. Many of the jurors relied on the oral messages that they received through the testimony of eyewitnesses in the courtroom. When they regurgitated the information in the jury room, however, some of the messages could have been, and probably were, distorted. This is why many people prefer to hear it “straight from the horse’s mouth.” Others used the testimony to prove the beliefs of others wrong or to find a reasonable doubt to vote not guilty.
Open Document