12 Angry Men

In conclusion, juror number 10 has the decision to deem the defendant either guilty or not guilty and his classism and prejudice affected his inability to make a fair decision as well as the group's ability deliver a fair verdict by buffering the process of the jury’s decision. In contrast to his mindset , he succumbed to declaring a not guilty verdict because he has a reasonable doubt in mind. In most cases, having a sense of classicism and bias only ends up in alienation for the individual which is what happened to juror 10. Overall, juror ten is one of the few, yet problematic jurors who really

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

The movie “12 Angry Men” covers different negotiation and conflict resolutions. The communication is set in a jury room where people with different worldview are bargaining over the judgment of a murder case. Juror 8 is willing to stand alone with his vote “not guilty”. Trying to avoid the winner’s course, he demanded a conversation about the case despite the clear 11-1 vote on the guilt of the defendant. Juror 8 discredits his opponents’ arguments and uncovers their constraint thinking, he uncovering doubtful evidence, alienating hardliners and engaging in conversations. In the conversation it becomes obvious that not every juror bases his decision on the same facts, and

Throughout the play the character of juror 3 had shown the audience many types of prejudice that he represented it in different ways of actions that happened with him in his own life. Furthermore, juror 3 had played his role during the play as a guy who's rigid in his opinions and not used to having people disagree with him. Even before the jury has started talking "Six days. [the judges] should have finished it in two. [Slapping back of one hand into palm of the other.] Talk! Talk! Talk! [Gets up and starts for water cooler.] Did [to the other jurors in the jury room] ever hear so much talk about nothing?" additionally, in his mind, it's totally clear that the defendant

The vote has just changed from five to seven in favor of guilty to nine to three in favor of acquittal, this raises anger in Juror ten and he starts yelling “‘You know, they get drunk… oh they’re very big drinkers, all of ‘em and bang, someone’s lying in the gutter. Oh, nobody’s blaming them for it. That’s how they’re! By nature! You know what I mean? Violent!”’ Juror#10 (246). Juror ten reaches his verdict based on stereotypes and prejudice.All of his deliberations are based on the fact that people like the defendant are liars and criminals. Even though it says in The Trial Juror’s Handbook, that the juror needs to be fair and impartial, Juror ten is not following that. He doesn't want to look at the facts. He is categorizing the defendant into all the same category as people like him or “them”. Juror ten is the archetype of biased Juror, which is not an ideal Juror for the

In this case, the juror 3 and juror 8 are very different. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant person also he is known as a bully. On the other hand juror, 8 is an open minded individual that always listens to someone before speaking his part in something. Juror 3 also believes whatever I say I’m always right and nobody could correct me or tell me something that proves him wrong. For example,”What's the *matter* with you guys? You all

Due to his troubled relationship with his own son, Juror #3 was consciously convinced that the teenage boy on trial was guilty. As viewers, we are led to believe that this is the contributing factor to his prejudice against the defendant, accused of stabbing his own father. He states, “haven’t’ seen him in two years, kids, you work your heart out…” then he abruptly stops. Once the Juror comes to his senses and realizes that he is only basing his feelings off of his own son and their relationship, he finally is convinced the teenage defendant is not guilty. The man's use of pity toward his own situation is another perfect example of pathos which led to astonishing

In the movie, the jury has to come to a unanimous decision on the boy’s innocence or guilt as stated by the judge in the beginning of the film and that any decision that is not unanimous will result in a hung jury where they will most likely schedule for a retrial. While most of the characters of the jury seem adamant about the eventual result of the kid and how his fate should pan out, juror number 8 decides that he is going to vote for not guilty in order to have a reasonable discussion about the trial instead of immediately sending the defendant to the chair to be executed. This is met by the initial outrage of the group at the thought of someone going against what was the norm of the group, which is very uncommon for someone to do especially in a murder trial where people tend to be very opinionated and set in stone about their ideas. This unflinching and unresolving attitude is shown throughout the movie as juror number 8 slowly and methodically uses both central and peripheral route persuasion to

When analyzing the film, 12 Angry Men, one will notice the reasoning is not consumed by the story, but by the characters and their involvement and interaction. In a brief summary of the film, it contains twelve jurors who are all participating in a trial. The trial is concerning a young adolescent who is being appointed for the death of his father. “Credit the power of this lucid study to the fact that the attributes, failings, passions and prejudices of these tales men is as striking and important as the awesome truth that they hold a boy's life in their hands” (Weiler). Through out the story, the juror’s personalities and qualities are shown, each having their own opinion of the plea bargain. Identified in detail through this analysis, one will be able to clearly depict the different characterization of the jurors. Along with their individual personas, all of the juryman fall under the category of either being Socratic or a sophist in Aristocratic terms. When looking at the arguments among the jurors one can see the different logical styles utilized, and which were effect versus the not effective approaches. Progressively through the movie, the argument grows and each juror becoming their own. When criticizing and evaluating the content of 12 Angry Men, the real meaning behind the story becomes apparent. The connotation of this film is studying the actions of the jurors and what each one brings the case in terms of rhetoric and Aristocratic style.

The difference in age is established through the directions of the play that describes the 9th Juror as an “old man”. As an older man his opinion of being a jury member is not as big of an annoyance, since he most likely does not have any pressing priorities, such as work, events or family matters; in contrast to some of the other jury members in the room. The youthful members, such as the 7th Juror that desires to depart to his “ballgame” and the 4th Juror that is required to find deals as a broker for his clients, are quite busy and have other affairs to attend to. Thus, the different ages amplify the irritated viewpoints in the younger aged jurors, since they have other matters to attend to and wish to achieve the verdict quickly. The 9th Juror’s eagerness causes an impatient atmosphere within the courtroom. His impulsive nature is displayed when he stated that the “boy in the trial is probably guilty”, but he desired “to hear more”. This kind-hearted nature causes apprehension and friction through the courtroom, since most the jury members do not see the point of prolonging the dispute and just with to go back to their lives and

Obviously these group of randomly selected individuals (the jury) have no clue about each other, their backgrounds and personalities. In fact, they don't even know each others names but they must still, for that brief time come together to make such an important decision. Over the span of the movie we see that each of the characters adds their own experience as it relates to the case and they have their own unique perspective on it. Juror 8, puts himself in the young boys shoes.

I think the guy is guilty. You couldn’t change my mind if you spoke for a hundred years.” (7th Juror - p.7) As the play goes on and more and more people start to vote ‘not guilty’ along with the 8th Juror the more passionate Jurors become even angrier.

Juror three is a stubborn and short-tempered person. Juror three made solid sentiments in the beginning, which actively kept him involved in the discussion but he started losing control as the discussion continued. Because he disliked Juror eight, the argument between them strengthened the discussion. His loud and demanding personality made jurors go against his claim because his rage was intolerable by others. Later in the discussion, it was also revealed that he had a poor relationship with his own son, which led to believe that this was one of the causes to his intolerance against the suspect. When Juror three understood that he is only presenting an insight of his feelings regarding his own son onto the suspect, he changed his decision.

He openly admits to another jury member that he selectively listened during the trial due to an evident lack of interest and a judgmental attitude towards both the accused and the judicial system. This, as the viewer later learns, is also due to a personal and emotion connection the juror feels towards the case in the form of the strained personal relationship with his son. Juror #3 also demonstrates an evident lack of interest in the opinions of others during deliberations; he also develops a prejudice against certain jurors such as Juror #8 and Juror #9 when they press a ‘hot buttons’ issue by openly argue with his logic or opinion. He even becomes physically agitated and violent towards these jury members as they continue to question

First, we will apply the Johari grid theory and see how it applies to their situation. Then, we will see how each individual's frame of reference and prejudices effect their perception which cause difficulties in the communication process. If we analyze the Johari grid of each juror we see a large hidden area in the case of all of the men. Take into consideration, referred to by juror numbers only they do not even have the benefit of knowing their names. These men have never talked before. Each of them come from different situations with individual and unique experiences. The public area consists solely of the shared information provided during the trial. Their hidden area is immense resulting in an equally large blind area. The public, hidden and blind areas are relatively the same for each juror before beginning the deliberation.