12 Angry Men
For the purpose of this paper I will be using a movie based on a teen male who is on trial for the murder of his father in 1957. There are twelve men on the jury who are from all different areas of society. They have one goal, to decide based on testimony and evidence on whether the accused is guilty or not. The following information is one person’s observation of the movie “12 Angry Men” using the 5 Stages of Group Development.
Keywords: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Adjourning
The Jury The Jury is conformed of twelve men. Each man is in a different social status in society and are sworn to have no prior opinion towards this case. To find the accused unanimously guilty of a crime, all twelve Jurors have to agree with out reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. If one Juror thinks there could be any doubt then all twelve have to agree the accused is innocent or it’s a hung Jury.
Jurors are not clear on what they are supposed to do besides as a group decide if the young man accused is guilty or innocent. The jury room was very stifling, men are opening windows for air and using this as an opportunity to initiate superficial conversation with each other as individuals not as a group. Juror 10 publicized his sickness and need for air, his unintentional and non-confrontational approach to acquire attention. Juror 7, tries to start conversation with each and every man who approaches the windows. This constant need for
Throughout the film, the audience becomes familiar with each of the jurors and is quickly introduced to topics at issue such as discrimination, iniquitous motives, and concerns about the American judicial system. As the twelve jurors deliberate to reach a verdict, the film epitomizes the validation and condemnation of the American justice system. There are many responsibilities of a jury: to achieve fair and impartial decision, determine guilt or not guilt, give people voice in the government, and to protect the
Inside a room where life or death decisions are made, twelve men sit with wandering thoughts. The made up minds of some jurors are to send a boy to his death without a second thought, but one other juror may change that. Inside of the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror 8 has the persuasive evidence to change the minds of his fellow Jurors and save a boy from his execution. The other Juror’s seem like they won’t budge with their mind set on the decision of guilty, but after Juror 8 proves his thoughts on the decision of innocent, he may just be able to save a young life.
Twelve Angry Men was written over half of a century ago but still baits thought as to one’s true character. Screening the process of twelve jurors determining a young boys fate in a murder trial, the picture dissects individuals and begins to uproot prejudice and biases a few of the jurors were at first uncomfortable to admit. The 1957 MGM film Twelve Angry Men provokes thought through twelve on-screen characters by displaying their skills in empathy, personal priorities, and self-control.
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 film “12 Angry Men” gives the audience insight as to how jury deliberations work. The film follows 12 jurors throughout the process of finding the defendant’s sentencing. The jury is overseeing a case surrounding a young boy who is charged with the murder of his father. It was interesting to see the process of this paired with the way each character’s vote had an effect on each of the other juror’s decisions. The film “12 Angry Men” portrays a realistic fluctuation of stances in a room of jurors as a whole and individually based upon the prior experiences and ethics of each juror.
First, Juror 8 stood his ground. In the beginning the Foreman called for a vote and eleven men raised their hand for guilty while Juror 8 raised his hand for not guilty. “There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” said Juror 8 for justifying his actions. Later, when the other jurors were trying to convince Juror 8, he was quick with his arguments. To Juror 2 he said, “Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t have to open his mouth. That’s in the constitution. You’ve heard of it.” To Juror 10 he said, “You don’t believe the boy. How come you believe the woman? She’s one of “them” too, isn’t she?” When Juror 6 brought up the motive for the murder, Juror 8 remarked with, “…I
Twelve Angry Men is a play that shows the workings of the American Justice System. The play is a celebration of the judicial system, and the main theme of the play is the triumph and the fragility of justice. The defendant’s fate is on the hand of the jurors as the man is accused of a serious offense which is murder. The purpose of the essay is to show the role that the plot, characters and the conflicts among the jurors support the theme of justice. Each juror had an initial verdict when the play begins but as events unfold and conflicts and agreements are reached the final and fair verdict is presented.
Throughout the play, justice is most shown when deciding the outcome of this defendant. Juror Eleven explains how personal experiences should not bias one’s decision. Juror Eight has always displayed fairness throughout the case, especially when explaining how one’s motives should not influence the other’s decision. Lastly, Juror Ten explains how facts are more important when decided the defendant’s fate, and feelings should be kept silent. In the conclusion of 12 Angry Men, the author demonstrates how fairness will be chosen over pity or hatred when determining the offender’s
Several pairs of eyes trail the prosecutor as he puts forth his reasons as to why the defendant should be guilty. Several pairs of ears listen intently in a trance like mode, also cautious of every detail. The prosecutor presents the facts with great gusto, painting a picture of the defendant in a bad light. Once he is done, the defendant’s lawyer takes the stage and he too, with great effort, puts forth reasons as to why his client is innocent. In the end, when everything is said and done and it time for the verdict, only one voice answers to the court clerk out of the 12 men and women. These 12 people are the jurymen and they play an equally important role as the lawyers and judges of a court trial. In fact, a jury is the sole decider, based
Twelve members of a jury entered a room to deliberate a verdict involving an accused teen’s death. Although the trial contained a strong set of testimonies, one of the jurors believed that there was a reasonable doubt in the case. Despite the other eleven members of the jury’s wish, jurors ended up having to discuss about the matter and try to come to an agreement whether or not the accused was actually guilty of the murder or not. This paper will analyze the members’ interpersonal communications displayed in the film.
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.
In the play, 12 Angry Men, the vote was 11-1 in favor of a guilty verdict in the case being tried. The one juror stood his ground, explained his theory as to why a guilty verdict could not be delivered, and was unwavering in his stance. The jurors went around the table twice, and ended with everyone siding with the original juror. As the deliberations played out and jurors were questioned, some jurors were not able to justify their guilty verdict, merely stating “It just is”. This statement shows the effect of the groupthink mentality, especially since one juror was considerably vocal and angered by the time being spent on deliberations. The logical discussions the other jurors had with one another displayed a positive aspect
It looks like they do not understand how to carry out their duties. For example, The Jury # 1 pronounced himself as a leader ,but does not lead a group, very passive one, on the opposite side, the Jury # 3 is very aggressive, and cannot obstruct the drama of his own life, the conflict with his own son from the case of a stranger. His emotions overflowed his awareness and take him away from reasonable solutions. Jury # 7 appears as a careless, selfish person interested only in a coming up baseball game. Almost all of them demonstrated a personal prejudice, as a Jury # 10, who truly believes, that some people just “born to be criminals”. It takes a lot of courtesy to Jury #8 to stand for the fair justice and speak up his mind against 11 other people, who truly believe the boy is guilty. He raised his voice for fair justice, he said “it is possible”, possible to make mistakes, and that before to send a person to the electric chair, jurors should be prudent, conscious and thoughtful. Being focused on reasonable doubt, he convicted other juries to question “the truth of evidence”. Now, working as a team, and recreating the chain of events, juries see the situation differently. One by one they realized, that context of the story could be different. The Juror’s # 5, who has a “ slam background “ helps to challenge the angle of the knife wound, and convicted Jury # 9 to change his
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.
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.