12 Angry Men Research Paper

Marissa Dorfler S.A. Davis Management 191 September 23, 2014 12 Angry Men Decisions are made every day, however some come naturally and subconsciously to us, while others can be extremely difficult. There are constantly outside influences which effect our decision making, whether they are concerns about what others will think, or information and opinions that have been given have changed someone’s thoughts. It is difficult for people to go against the grain especially when everyone’s opinions are not what you believe. In the film 12 Angry Men, we see how people’s backgrounds and pasts influence their decision-making, when twelve Jurors are responsible for determining the future of a young man in a murder trial. Only one Juror, Juror #8,

Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is a play which displays the twelve individual jurors’ characteristics through the deliberation of a first degree murder case. Out of the twelve jurors, the 8th Juror shows an outstanding heroism exists in his individual bravery and truthfulness. At the start, the 8th Juror stands alone with his opposing view of the case to the other eleven jurors. Furthermore, he is depicted as a juror who definitely understands the jury system and defends it from the jurors who do not know it fully. At the end, he eventually successes to persuade the eleven other jurors and achieves a unanimous verdict, showing his

It demonstrates that most people put their personal feelings when it comes to trials like these. Even though there are people that will say that they are not racist or

12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a twisting story where a son is accussed of stabbing his father to death. Twelve strangers are told to listen to this court case and are then stuck in a small, hot room where they are told to decide on a verdict, whether or not the kid lives or dies. The jury finally decides on the verdict of : Not Guilty. Three major facts that influence the juries agreement that the accussed is not guilty include doubts of the murder weapon, doubts of the old man’s testimony, and doubts of the lady across the street’s testimony.

Twelve Angry Men (1957) showed several example of conflicts within the film. I will examine how each conflict was managed, which conflicts were resolved and how, along with the kinds of effects each of these conflicts caused in the film.

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 heart of the American Judicial System is the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused. At the beginning of the play, the jurors all feel that the man is guilty for murdering his father and they all wanted to convict him without carrying out a detailed discussion. The persistence of juror eight, however, plays a significant role in ensuring that the correct and fair verdict is delivered. The judicial system maintains that the defendant does not have an obligation to prove his innocence. The fact is not clear to everyone as Juror 8 reminds Juror 2 about it. The fact is a key element of the judicial system and assists in the process of coming up with a verdict. The defendant is usually innocent until proven guilty. Another element of the judicial system that comes out in the play is for a verdict to stand it must be unanimous. Unanimity ensures that the

The jury in a trial is selected to examine certain facts and determine truth based only upon the evidence presented to them in court. It is assumed that the jurors will judge fairly and without any personal bias. In spite of this assumption people will be people and in some cases, logic and emotion will collide. An excellent example that shows precisely what I’m talking about is in the movie Twelve Angry Men. Twelve men who initially are strangers to each other have the fate of a young boy resting in the palm of their hands. In the beginning everyone is convinced he is guilty except one who has one reasonable doubt in his mind. The single man on his own was able to convince each of them by using logic to examine the

Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting play about an unfortunate young man, who was convicted of killing his dad. The worst part was, the young man was only nineteen, and his life was just starting. The jurors listened to all the evidence, then came the hard part, making the decision: guilty, or innocent. Eleven jurors said guilty and only one said innocent. There was a lot of peer pressure involved. I decided to write about different peer pressures three of the jurors used.

The Constitution guarantees the right to trial by an impartial jury. Impartiality is the principle holding that all parties should be subject to equal treatment under the law. Being impartial requires jury members to reach a decision based on the evidence presented. The chosen jury must be unbiased, and capable of weighing out the evidence objectively. In order to counter bias, The Supreme Court established a rule that the selection of jurors must be from a pool representative of a cross-section of the community.

I am writing to tell you about my conclusion of whether justice was served on the Twelve Angry Men trial, in which the jurors presented a verdict of “not guilty”. I believe that the verdict could be wrong, and that reopening the case with a retrial would be the best course of action possible. To remind you about the case, a sixteen-year-old boy was accused of fatally stabbing his father with a switch knife. The witnesses were an old man who lived underneath the room where the murder took place, and a woman across the street with a window right opposite the kid’s. The old man claimed to have heard loud noises (that sounded like a fight) upstairs at approximately 12:10 and later heard the kid shout “I’m going to kill you”.

The film 12 angry men was about twelve jurors and the case they were assign too. The case was about a teenage boy murdering his father with a knife. The jurors job was to state their beliefs about the facts of the case. In the film it showed social psychological concepts that displayed the juror’s opinions and beliefs of the case when it came to finding the defendant guilty or not guilty. The three social psychological concepts in the film I chose to write about is prejudice, informational conformity, and naïve realism.

Idealized Influence – defined by the values, morals, and ethical principles of a leader and is manifest through behaviours that supress self interest and focus on the good of the collective.

An individual's past experiences can have an incredible impact on the way they think and behave for years to come. So, the past have a significant impact on an individual. In my own life, I have had past experiences that have affected me to be the person I am today. One example is, whenever I walked through the downtown part of Edmonton and I noticed a lot of homeless people lying around on the streets. I felt so bad for those poor people that didn’t have a place to live. They appreciate anything and everything they get. This really effects me and teaches me to be more grateful in life. And appreciate everything I have. In the play the 12 Angry Men, jurors 3, 5, and 11 prove that their experiences has affected who they are. I believe that juror 3’s family issues such as his problems with his son has affected him to become an aggressive man. Additionally, juror 5 has had a background of living in a slum all his life. Therefore, he tries to prove that not all people living in slums are criminals. Lastly, juror 11 struggles with others judging him because he is a European Refugee. This affected him by making him feel unconfident about himself and feels that the others jurors don't take his opinion too seriously.

Identify the dysfunctional and functional properties of the group in the film as they pertain to the problem the group is working on.