Critical Thinking In 12 Angry Men

Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.

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.

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.

12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in

Initially, Juror 8 stands alone during the first vote. For clarification, he doesn’t cower and change his initial vote when he notices that all the other people in the room are against him. Eight didn’t succumb to peer pressure and made it his duty to ensure everyone else sees what he does. Second, Juror 5 changed his vote from “guilty” to “not guilty” because he realised how much the accused has in common with his own upbringing. For instance, both of them grew up in the slums and were often negatively stereotyped. People tend to agree with others if they find something that they have in common. Lastly, Juror 11 called Juror 7 out for misusing his freedoms as an American citizen and his responsibilities as a Juror of the court. Being that Juror Seven only changed his vote because he had tickets to a play, Juror 11 was enraged, mainly because not everyone has the same opportunities as they do at the moment. When Juror 11 lived in Europe, he never had opportunities like this so he was taking it seriously, especially because the life of someone else was in jeopardy. Quite often literature mirrors real life, as is the case with the recent shooting in Las Vegas when complete strangers risked their own safety or put their own lives on hold to help when others were in

12 Angry Men film features a group of jurors who had to make a decision on the innocence or guilt of an accused murderer. The jury aimed at rendering a unanimous verdict in the murder trial of a teenage boy; it depicts the dynamics of group decision making. At the initial stage, eleven out of the twelve jurors voted guilty, and after carrying out a discussion, the jurors came into a conclusion of not-guilty decision. This process shows that minority transformed the opinion of the majority by exerting persuasive tactics. This was a demonstration of effective leadership.

Angry! Hostile!” This causes him to not listen to the other jurors opinions and block out any idea of the defendant being innocent. His prejudice is further understood when he says “this kid is guilty. He’s got to burn. We’re letting him slip through our fingers here.” Juror #3 is only able to see the young boy on trial as a symbol of his own son and is therefore unable to look past his own anger towards his son and see the case for what it really is. It is only through the help of juror #8 does juror #3 finally let go of his personal prejudice and sees the truth about the case and changes his vote to not guilty.

The main conflict between Juror 3 and Juror 8 is that Juror 8 did his job as a juror and Juror 3 is basing his verdict on the fact that he doesn't give any freedom to those from the lower class because he simply doesn't like them. But one of Juror 3’s biggest problems is that he wants the deliberation to be over as fast as possible. When Juror 3 heard all of the evidence he had his mind set just based on his past experience without questioning some of the evidence presented in the case. On the other hand Juror 8 comes into the jury room a bit more open minded and he is open to listen to all the opinions of the case discarding his past experiences with kids. This leads to both of the jurors having some conflict between biases and prejudices.

Regardless that everyone in the room was entitled to their own opinions, the decision they were about to make was between life or death. Juror #8 simply chose to vote ‘not guilty’. He was one against many, but that did not sway his decision. All he wished to do was review and scrutinize the dubious case, in which he was assigned. Some would say, he stood his ground as if he were as stubborn as a mule. He was not going to let a few people’s opinions get in his way. Although he may not have been fighting against a town of people, he was getting harassed by eleven other duplicitous opinions. For instance, Juror #3 even went as far as yelling, “Let go of me, God damn it! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” (Rose, 48). He had no right to make those threats, period. As a matter of fact, there are no reasons that come close to justifying his actions. On a positive note, thankfully Juror #8 did not give into peer pressure. Although on the other hand, sadly many people in today 's society would have resulted to it. Generally speaking, the narrow minded Jurors were very comparable to the church from The Crucible. The church demonstrated a very strict biased against any suspicious activity. In a similar way, most of the jurors came into court with irrational ideas and preconceived

In the film "12 angry men", we can see that there is no sensitivity towards the kid that is blamed for homicide of his dad. Most of the legal jurors felt that there ought to be no requirement for sensitivity since the greater part of the proof that was brought into the court has smashed the safeguard and the kid's chance on trial. The arraignment made it clear that the kid is truth be told guilty. In the underlying vote that was finished by the legal jurors, everyone votes "guilty" against the kid aside from member of juror eight. This is the place we see the significance of juror eight in light of his sensible uncertainty the jury had not found the kid liable inside of the initial 10 minutes of their debating, which would have finished the trial. Juror eight did not as a matter of course trust that the kid was blameless, but rather he realized that on the off chance that he had raised his hand at the vote, it would all end, and they won't have an opportunity to talk about the case. Juror eight in eyes trusted that if the case finished, then it will put down the value of human life.

In the story Twelve Angry Men, there is a group of jurors that try to solve a case about an African American teen who murdered his dad with a knife. There are twelve jurors in this story, but this essay will only be about two of them, No. 8 and No. 10. Juror No. 8 is a highly skilled man who looks only at the facts. Where as Juror No.10 is a man that doesn’t look at the facts, but also bases his opinions off of past events.

Very early into the movie the jurors are involved in group dynamics, which we defined in class as the processes involved when a collection of people interact with one another. The idea of ‘Groupthink” first comes into play when the men are asked to cast their vote based on the trial they just sat in on. A couple of the men immediately raise their hands for guilty while the other, less “certain” members wait a moment till after seeing the majority of the group raise their hand for them do the same. As we studied in class, this interaction between group members happens when members are more worried about fitting in, or being a part of the “status quo” so to speak then actually offering their true opinion. Henry Fonda the man who played juror

12 Angry Men, an influential and awarding winning film, is a unique movie that tells the story of twelve jurors who converse on whether the defendant is guilty or not. Despite its old age and different setting, the movie is a film worth watching as it provides real life scenarios and application of conflict management when confronted with a problem at hand and conflict from fellow members. In fact, the movie adequately portrays the occurance of groupthink, types of conflicts seen in small groups, and ways to resolve conflicts that ultimately influences how the conversation goes. 12 Angry Men does a spectacular job in enrapturing audiences with the plot at hand and showing how issues can solved in order to reach a common goal.

The 1957 move, 12 Angry Men, takes place in a jurors deliberation room in which twelve jurors must decide the fate of a young man accused of murder (Fonda, Justin, & Rose, 1957). Right away the jurors decide to take a vote in order to unanimously come to a guilty verdict so that they can go home. Davis, the juror played by Henry Fonda, throws everyone off-guard when he states his verdict of not guilty (Fonda et al., 1957). Interesting group dynamics take place as a result of Davis’s verdict, such as persuasion, conformity, and minority influence, how prejudice is displayed in the deliberation room, the evidence of cognitive heuristics, and group polarization.

In life people are tasked by different dilemmas and they have to make decisions from time to time. In this film “12 Angry Men” it can be equated to daily activities involving decision making. In this film there are 12 men who have been tasked as jurors to make a verdict on a young boy who has been accused of killing his abusive father. When a vote is taken at first it is realized that of all the 12 jurors, juror number eight votes against all the eleven claiming that he is not sure if the boy is guilty and that when they have to discuss and come up with a verdict, since the jury is allowed to give one single verdict that is unanimous. What hinders the whole debate is the