Justice In 12 Angry Men

After the twelve jurors had taken their initial vote, Juror Eight found himself to be a pariah among his associates, for simply possessing an opinion contradictory to the other 11 men in the room; breaking the pattern of unanimous voting, and declaring that he felt the accused might not be guilty. After the other jurors took turns verbally expressing their dissatisfaction with his audacious contradiction to the majority opinion, Juror Eight calmly responded: “It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (Fonda). Here lies the fundamental characteristic that renders Juror Eight a leader among his peers: his desire to consider the situation at hand to a deeper extent than what the other jurors felt was necessary. This inherent drive to face the true perplexity of the situation and submerge his consciousness under the pressure that upheld a human life ultimately led Juror Eight to shed light upon the holes in the evidence, and find an opinion worthy of acting upon. By deeply evaluating the witness’s’ testimonies, and considering the consequences of his decision, Juror Eight considered the situation before him deep within the dimensions of empathy and skepticism. The minds that can embark on such voyages through labyrinthine speculation

12 Angry Men is a movie centered around a murder case and the 12 men that are in charge of providing a verdict for a kid charged of first degree murder of his own father. In this movie, the characters have to face a long and grueling procedure of figuring out how to charge the kid after a six day long trial and hours long deliberation between the jurors. The film of 12 Angry Men has several key psychological aspects to it that can be accurately and summarily described.

Daily there are thousands of people being found guilty for a crime they did not commit because of a prejudiced judge.Sidney Lumet and Reginald Rose the writers and directors of 12 Angry Men wrote and produced a play about 12 jurors that briefly discuss a trial and come to a verdict , personal issues develop which causes conflict and only makes the process more grueling. The accused boy is being found guilty for murdering his father, 12 jurors are put in a hot room in New York and spend hours briefly viewing the scenario. Although one might think that the justice system should be left in the hands of citizens ,the director and writer of 12 Angry Men , Sidney Lumet and Reginald Rose demonstrate that the United States justice system is unfair and is simply corrupt , inefficient , and injustice due to the jurors biases minds, ignorant attitude ,and the lack of time and energy put in the trial while trying to decide a verdict.

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.

12 Angry Men is a film that plays on show many features of Organizational Behavior. The jurors of 12 men are locked in a room to deciding the future boy who is being accused of murdering his father; the movies show the four stages of Bruce Tuckman’s Group Development Model of Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing. With this model, the movie also show difficulties and cohesiveness that the 12 different men experience as they must come together to make a single decision. While attempting to make this decision, they show several examples of influential behavior being highlighted throughout the film, as each member of the Jury experience using reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values and bargaining tools.

Life is in their hands, death is on their minds. The movie Twelve Angry Men consists of

Even before the deliberation talks begin it is apparent most of the men are certain the boy is guilty. However, when the initial poll is taken Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) registers a shocking “not guilty” vote; Immediately the room is in an uproar. The rest of the jury resents the inconvenience of his decision. After questioning his sanity they hastily decide to humor the juror #8 (Henry Fonda) by agreeing to discuss the trial for one hour. Eventually, as the talks proceed juror #8 slowly undermines their confidence by saying that the murder weapon is widely available to anyone, and that the testimony of the key witness is suspect. Gradually they are won over by his arguments and even the most narrow minded of his fellow jurors hesitantly agrees with him. Their verdict is now a solid not guilty.

The drama play/film, 12 Angry Men, written in 1957 by Reginald Rose, is about concerns that arise in a homicide trial of an 18 year old inner city teen, who was accused of stabbing his father to death. As the arguments of the trial closed, the 12 members of the jury prepare to put careful thought into a decision, with a guilty verdict sentencing the teen to death. As a unanimous decision is attempted to be reached while in isolation together, juror member 8 expresses sincere doubt in details of the case. Delicate personal issues came about in the room, and strife creates a risk of the trial being disrupted or delayed, as opposed to a smooth process, which could be costly for the teen. Many factors contributed to the apprehensions that were faced during the trial of the boy who they believed killed his father. The ideas and perspectives of those factors can influence the overall outcome of the decisions made in the jury room, which will result in a life or death sentence. There are similarities and differences in the rational and irrational arguments for a guilty decision made by juror #4, #7, and #10 in the film 12 Angry Men.

Consider the scenario of the movie “12 Angry Men”, eleven jurors vote in favor of convicting the accused without even discussing a single shred of evidence that was presented at the trial. In the movie, if Henry Fonda wasn’t part of the jury, the boy would have been declared guilty and would have died (1957). However, Fonda decided to continue investigating and finally got to the bottom of the mystery. The boy was declared not guilty, but neither the play nor the movie tells us whether they saved an innocent man from death or whether they let a guilty man walk free. The movie emphasizes how important our judicial system is, and how much responsibility we have as citizens to become a jury of our peers and not rush into judgment, because as seen in the movie, jurors judged the accused based on their personal life

This movie is centered on twelve jurors debating to decide the fate the young boy charged with murdering his father. We saw the jurors all defined in terms of their personalities, background, occupations, prejudices and emotional tilts. There are different displays of leadership skills in this movie. The movie opens with the jurors casting guilty votes to determine a verdict. All eleven jurors except juror 8 voted not guilty. He went against the norm and voted not guilty stating that he has doubts about the case, and wishes to give the boy who has had a disadvantaged upbringing, a fair hearing. He was ridiculed and laughed at but he remained focused, aggressive and persuasive on his belief and elaborated on what every juror has to say to keep the group focused on the deliberation. Besides, he was able to listen to everyone and displayed the appropriate attitudes, and patience to go along with the readiness of the jurors to switch their votes. Also, he showed empathy when he asked the jurors to imagine themselves in the boy’s shoes awaiting death sentence, physical abuse and torment by father, growing up in the slum. In addition,there would not had been any

The master piece executed by Reginald Rose 12 Angry Men has shown its audience the reality of human differences and similarities between two different people., and in this film it is very well demonstrated between juror eight and juror three. In the film of 12 Angry Men juror number eight and three bring a unique way of persistency and approach individually, but also show a definite progression all through out the film.

The film from 1957, 12 Angry Men, directed by Sidney Lumet, is a clear scenario of the group decision making process. It portrays the story of a young man, that as the movie develops we come to find out that he is 16-years-old, the young man is facing a first degree murder charge; the allegation is that he stabbed his father. The twelve jurors in the case have to agree by unanimous decision in a guilty or not guilty verdict, if found guilty the young man is facing the death penalty, if found not guilty he is to walk away free. The judge, before dismissing the jurors to deliberate on the verdict makes remarks that imply the “culpability” of the young man.

Throughout the film 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 argues eleven men to prove the innocence of the young man who is on trial for the murder of his father. In the beginning of the film, the vote is guilty, eleven and not guilty, one. But as time goes on, Juror #8 has strong evidence to prove his point that the young man is not guilty. He takes into consideration that the decision these men makes is life or death, if they agree that he is guilty then he will be sent to the electric chair. After several hours of arguments and review of evidence, they unanimously chose not guilty. The film ends with Juror #8 and Juror #9 introducing themselves and then going their separate ways, never finding out if the young man was prosecuted as guilty or not guilty. This cliffhanger leaves the audience to decide for themselves, guilty or not guilty? Even though Juror #9 had strong evidence and influenced the whole jury, I believe the young man is guilty.

“Don’t judge so you shall not be judged” (Luke 6:37), is a famous proverb quote that many people go by. But why is it that people judge? Or assume that someone is already guilty of a crime based on their race, skin color, economic status or family background? If someone has to make a judgment, he has to be certain of the facts surrounding the situation. Sentencing a person to die is a very crucial decision and the same reason goes into setting a guilty person free. Everybody deserves a fair and thorough trial. Judging a person according to someone else’s standards is not fair. In the 1957 Sydney Lumet film, The Twelve Angry Men, 12 jurors decided the fate of an 18-year boy, who was accused of killing his own father. The situation gradually transitioned from conflicting to agreeable and jurors’ characters changed from vindictive to considerate. The movie circled around the arguments on how people take a decision on innocence versus guilt in our democratic society. The increasing angst among the men was due to their different family backgrounds, personal differences, and the extremely inconvenient environment they are in.

In the movie “12 Angry Men” all five methods of influence were used. The Methods of influence such as use of reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values, and bargaining were all used by the jurors; whether it was purposely or subconsciously. The influential methods used by juror number eight were the most effective for many reasons.