12 Angry Men Essay

Recently in my AP English class, we watched The film “Twelve Angry Men”. The film was unique in the fact that it only had one setting, the Jury Room. The film showed no one else but the jurors and the warden, who all remained completely nameless throughout the entire movie and we're only identified by their juror numbers. The jurors were drastically different which I believe added more diversity and made the plot more complex and intriguing to the audience. I don't believe the film had a specific intended audience, I believe that this show can be appreciated by all audiences because it shows that reasonable doubt is a much easier state of mind then certainty.

The jurors were perceived expertise; therefore, their decision was taken as correct. These jurors were influenced by time constraint. The first moment of eleven jurors voting guilty, showed conformity in the jury room where there was a heated debate. The fear of the decision appearing deviant due to having majority influence led to making it conform to the idea of the minority. Many of the jurors had some commitments, and they felt that the jury impeded their progress in life. This time constraints had influence to conformity. This made the majority of the jurors to vote guilty. In the initial stage, some jurors followed the majority because they feared to look deviating from the idea of the majority which was perceived to be right. The six men who raised their hands for the first time to vote for the boy being guilty pressured the other five men to follow them; thus, this forced them to conform to the majority. The informational social influence made them conform to the minority that the boy was not

In the text Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the jury began as uncooperative and evolved into a more agreeable jury by the end. The jury started in a state of contradiction and an inability to cooperate. Most jurors only cared to listen to themselves and just wanted to bully other jurors into agreeing with them. They were in a hurry to get out of the deliberation room and just wanted to be done with this case as we can see when Seven said to Ten that “this better be fast” (Rose 88). He just wanted to leave so he could watch a theatrical performance. This proves how little this case meant to him and several other jurors. You can see how they disregard evidence for stereotypes when Ten explained the defendant's supposed lie by saying that the jury “know[s] how [these] people lie… [and] don’t need any real big reason to kill someone either” (Rose 106). He believed that just because the kid was raised in a slum, he would lie and kill ruthlessly. He didn’t believe anyone raised in the slums was above murder and lying. The early jury was a disaster and a disgrace to the justice system, but they slowly began to redeem themselves.

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 just want to talk for a while. Look, this boy’s been kicked around all his life. You know, living in the slums, his own mother dead since he was nine….. He’s a tough, angry kid. You know why slum kids get that way? Because we knock’em on the head once a day, every day. I think maybe we owe him a few words that’s all” (I.18.33-39). Juror #8 try’s to prove that the boy’s case should have meaning behind it and at least to give the boy a couple words for his sentencing. Juror #8 also straits “I don’t know. It doesn’t sound right to me” (II.28.18). Juror #8 has analyzed the situation more than any of the jurors because he puts the facts of what actually happened and how long it would take the witnesses to get to a clear

Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting film. As the evidence is brought up to question by the jurors themselves. The complexity of this case grew as the films went on. Then came the hard part, making the decision, guilty or not guilty. Especially when you have jurors that are over shadowed by prejudice that influence their decision. It is only when prejudice is set aside that the jurors’ are able to make a more logical decision on the case. As the movie continues, all twelve jurors slowly arrive in the room. They take a seat according to their jury numbers and begin to discuss the case. The foreman then reviews the case. You learn that the man is accused of killing his father and all jurors must vote guilty or not guilty for there to

He agreed with the “slum kid” statement, but focused upon the idea that the adolescents of today don’t possess any respect, value, or morality for their elders. Therefore, this all shows how the initial attributions of each character, along with their own stereotypes and norms, affected the end behaviors and actions of each juror and whether they thought the teenager was guilty or

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.

3. INTRODUCTION 12 Angry Men was broadcast in 1957, Orion-Nova production, which was written by Reginald Rose and directed by Sydney Lumet. The story line is about 12 men serving on a jury who has to decide whether to find 19 years old defendant guilty of murdering his father. A guilty verdict sends the defendant to the electric chair. The lawyer also not shows his eagerness to defend the defendant.

Juror Three was arguably the most difficult juror to convince that the boy was not guilty. Throughout the whole film, up until the end, Juror Three stood his ground with his argument. Juror Three often disagreed with any counterargument that Juror Eight made. Near the beginning of the film, Juror Three went off on an off-topic tangent about his son and how he was so ashamed in his actions and how he was also a teen. Therefore, we are able to notice the motive behind the arguments that he made. Juror Three would often try to counter someone else’s argument by stating that he knows for sure the boy is guilty. For almost every counter argument, he would provide little to no evidence to back his claims. In addition, the most notable trait about Juror Three’s arguments is that he refuses to acknowledge that there is, indeed, reasonable doubt. For example, despite all the information about the

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.

First degree murder is the charge the vote must be twelve to zero either way. Eleven to one is the results of the first vote by the jury in the movie 12 Angry Men. The jury is to decide if an 18 year of boy is guilty of first degree murder. If he is found guilty is will be sent to the chair. In the movie 12 Angry Men the actor that plays Mr. Davis used his core values of finding the truth, kindness, and the belief that every life matters to make the jury study the details of the case.

The movie Twelve Angry Men begins with an eighteen year old boy from the ghetto who is on trial for the murder of his abusive father.

The movie Twelve Angry Men is about the twelve jurors that could adjust their influence in a decision-making process for conviction an eighteen years-old boy, whether the boy guilty or not guilty in murdering of his father. It represents a perfect example for applicable of a work group development framework. It also has examples of influence techniques among a group’s members. This paper is looking at those specific examples in the movie and focusing in analysis the reasons why Juror 8 is so much more effective than others in the meeting.

In 12 Angry Men, jurors determined if a young, poor Puerto Rican man murdered his father. Initially, eleven of the men determined that the defendant was guilty of murder; however, one juror held that the defendant was innocent, and he believed the man deserved a chance at being proven innocent. After intense debate, the jury found the defendant not guilty. Even though this movie shows evidence of prejudice, groupthink, conformity, cognitive heuristics, the catalyst of change and minority influence benefitted the jury in making a unanimous, educated decision about the fate of the young man.