Conformity In 12 Angry Men

* When the 12 person jury meets in the room to vote on a guilty or non-guilty verdict, the method used to vote was 1st based on a majority decision-making process where those would raise their hands for guilty and a non-guilty verdict. Once the results were in and 11 voted guilty and 1 voting not guilty. Based on the movie, 11 members of the jury voted guilty while 1 juror voted non-guilty. The 1 non-guilty, disrupted the dynamics of everyone else’s vote; which leads to a major conflict. They now needed to illustrate the pros and cons of both guilty and non-guilty parties.

People's bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that

In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.

For Fonda the entire film is him doing just that. Being that Fonda what the only one at the beginning to vote not guilty, he used his enthusiasm to bring the rest of the jurors over to his way of think. A good example of this is how he convinced juror number 9 (the old man) that there could be doubt in the witness that was an older gentleman like he was. By showing juror 9 that there were flaws in the evidence and the witnesses he was able to gain another follower. His enthusiasm for getting the ruling right is what drove him to be able to make this happen time and time again with every juror (Fonda & Lumet, 1957).

In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.

The Fonda character states, “We're talking about somebody's life here.” “We can't decide in five minutes. Supposing we're wrong?” This statement has a large impact on the other 11 jurors. The old man whom is sitting next to the Fonda character sides with the Fonda character. The Fonda character made sure he pointed out that the person of interest was from a broken home, and was hit on top of the head every day for most of his life. The person of interest was born in the slums and had a hard life, his mother was dead and now his father had been murdered.

Prejudice can often be formed without one even realize they are prejudiced, many of the characters in 12 Angry Men, have done as such, allowing their prejudice to not allow them fully evaluate the case unbiasedly. Jurors three, ten and seven are swayed by their prejudiced beliefs against the accused, as the deliberate the accused fate, juror ten states “his type are no good”(12 Angry Men). This prejudice which all of them share, justifiers their neglecting to inspect the evidence and testimony given rather than simply accepting it at face value. The film 12 Angry Men conveys how difficult it can be to set aside prejudiced views through jurors three, seven, and ten. The film also enables the reader to see how prejudice such as past experiences, ingnorance or misinformation, and stereotyping can cloud ones judgement.

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.

It was interesting to see the large differences in each juror’s lives. Every jury is eclectic because it is made up of very different people with very different family lives. For example, Juror #3 seems to be a well educated and well off man as he was wearing suspenders and a dress shirt. However, Juror #7 was a young man who seemed fairly uneducated and fairly poor because he dressed in a sweatsuit and used improper language. It was very interesting to see these different personalities clash. In the beginning when the men are all on the same page that the defendant is guilty except one, the men generally more relaxed (except for Juror #3).However, as more of the men start to explain their reasonings for seeing reasonable doubt, tension is prevalent in the room. The men who vote guilty are rallying up against the people who voted not guilty. The feeling of the room switches again as most jurors decide the defendant is guilty. That being said, Juror #3 creates a lot of tension in the room throughout the film due to the the fact that he yells at anyone who disagrees with him because he is unwilling to hear their opinions. For example, while one man is explaining why he thinks there is reasonable doubt, juror #3 decides to start a game of tic tac toe. This is very interesting because he is ready to send the defendant to his deathbed

The play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose demonstrates how biases can affect jury duty. A bias is a prejudice in favor of a particular group, person, or thing resulting in unfairness. This play gives readers an example of how biases influence the thoughts of many. Each juror is biased in their own way, whether it is race, age, or gender. These bias’ prevent people from seeing the truth to a side of a story. The twelve jurors must determine the fate of the eighteen year old boy without leading their biases in different interpretations of the evidence. Biased stereotypes tend to combine with the tendency to repent information proving evidence. More times than not the ones who are biased do not realize it. They proceed to input their conscience

From there the viewers see that the 12 Jurors retire to a private room where they briefly become acquainted before the deliberation begins. It is clear to the viewers that even before deliberation begins that there are clear biases among the Jurors. The Jurors number off and give their verdicts, and almost right off the bat all the Jurors, aside from one (Juror #8), vote guilty – and they also make it clear that they plan to deliver said verdict without forethought, on Henry Fonda (Juror #8) is the opposing vote of not guilty. His vote of not guilty

The film Twelve Angry Men shows many social psychology theories. This film presents some jurors who must decide if an accused murderer is guilty or innocent. In the beginning, all but one juror voted for guilty. Eventually, however, they come to a non-guilty verdict. It shows how a various group of individuals react to a situation that no one wants to be involved in. Twelve Angry Men exhibits so many examples of the true power of informational social influence and normative social influence. According to informational social influence, individuals tend to comply with others because they believe that another individuals version of a situation is more valid than their own. Normative social influence is a type of social influence that leads to conformity. This theory seems to fit in along with this movie because of the way the juror’s decisional processes went. Informational social influence is aggravated by obscurity and doubt of situation, importance of being correct, time constriction, and presence of those recognized as professionals. Just within the first few minutes of the movie, social influence is shown. In the jury room, a heated debate is prevented by an initial vote. This vote, which was taken publicly, was vulnerable to normative social influence or conformity from the fear of seeming in submissive. An obvious feeling of doubt is presented as the jurors vote. This hesitance can be perceived as weak conviction swayed by the guilty majority’s influence. Time constraints intensify informational social influence and possibly helped play a role in causing some of the jurors to cast guilty, conformist votes. Majority influence and social impact theory generate conformity. These theories are relevant in the jury context and are relevant to an explanation of Twelve Angry Men. Social impact theory specifies the situational and personal factors that bring on conformity. Conformity is enhanced by the immediacy element of social impact theory which brings to belief that without anonymity conflict is increasingly difficult. Perception of norms is apparently a factor that also brings out conformity. Stereotyping and prejudice were rampant at the time Twelve Angry Men was filmed. The director and writers cleverly

All the men settle down, as the "forming stage" begins with a consensus that this case has been pre-decided as a guilty verdict. Most men in the room mutually agree into the group process of the "storming stage". During the dialogue, the jurors began to take roles as a unanimous vote must be completed before returning. Nearly all juror's opinion points towards a guilty verdict, this symptom is the first groupthink term known as "Illusion of unanimity". A contradiction to this assumed general idea occurred as juror eight votes not guilty. Juror number eight displays another groupthink theory; his opposing vote, is later based on; "Belief in inherent morality". This symptom is the belief in the righteousness above conformity despite the situation. Conflict arises as the "norming stage" unfolds, as the other eleven men attempt to persuade that the boy is without a doubt guilty. A scene develops that manifest the groupthink issue of, "Stereotyped

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.

Taking other juror's characters into consideration, Jury number 2 and Jury number 12 are a complete contrast to Jury number 8. They both are hesitant in taking their stance. Especially Jury number 12 repeatedly changes his decision depending on what the aggressive members were wanting him to say. Jury number 3 was the most aggressive of all the 12 men. There was something not-so-appealing-yet-very-interesting about his personality. He was so single-minded that he not only disagreed to what others said, but was also willing to ask them to shut up and just say “guilty.” His aggressive behavior gives us a reason to think that he might have a bad relation with his son, which he actually had and reveals the story at the end. Jury number 7 has a completely different approach. He wants the discussions to end soon because he has got more important things to do in his life rather than having a look at the evidence's that could help to save someone's life. According to Benne and Sheats Functional Group Goals, Jury number 7 is an example of a deserter. Deserter is a person who withdraws from the group; appears “above it all” and bored or annoyed with the discussion; remains aloof or stops contributing ( Engleberg and Wynn 55). A deserter can also be called a self centered person. Jury number 8 seems an initiator-contributor, who proposes ideas and suggestions; provides direction for the group; gets the group