Juror's Decisions In The Film 12 Angry Men

The classic 1957 movie 12 Angry Men delves in to a panel of twelve jurors who are deciding the life or death fate of an eighteen year old italian boy accused of stabbing his father to death. The twelve men selected as jurors are a diverse group, each coming to the table with their own socioeconomic backgrounds, personal experiences, prejudice’s, and all of this plays a role in the jurors attitudes and/or misconceptions of the accused young man. How each of the jurors, all but Juror Eight played by Henry Fonda, experiences and personalities impact their original vote of guilty is clear at the beginning of the movie with the first vote. However, from the start, Juror Eight displays confidence, and demonstrates leadership abilities utilizing

In this novel, twelve jurors are designated to choose the verdict of a case. A sixteen-year-old boy is accused of murdering his father. If the jurors’ verdict is guilty, then the boy will receive a death sentence. The chosen jurors are locked in a room to decide the verdict, guilty or innocent. At the beginning, only one juror chose to vote not guilty, for the sake of reasonable doubt. The juror made thought out points and persuasively changed all other other jurors minds. By the end, all jurors chose to vote not guilty, except one. This particular juror voted guilty because he compared the defendant to his own son, whom he had problems with. This prejudice blocked his mind, making him confuse facts with his own judgment.

After carefully evaluating the evidence, each of you must decide whether or not that evidence convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. ”(Presumption of Innocence paragraph 8)- this quote shows how a jury is supposed to go into a case, but in Twelve Angry Men a lot of the jury members, including Juror 7 went into the case thinking the defendant is guilty, which is also known as personal bias. Juror 7 thought this was because of the defendant's background and where he grew up. Furthermore, the 7th juror's journey also highlights the challenges inherent in the jury system, particularly regarding personal biases and the influence of peer pressure. "He's an ignorant kid who's been in trouble with the law ever since he was born.

For your information, “Confirmation bias occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs. When people would like a certain idea or concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true.” (Heshmat 2) That means that confirmation bias is a big roadblock for the jury system. For example, when Juror 4 said, “He was born in a slum”.

In Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men there is a clear juror whom swayed the others and directly expressed his ideas. He is a “gentle man...who wants justice to be done.” Juror no.8 is the hero as his initial choice to vote not guilty locks in the boy's fate of escaping a life of prison and punishment; not excluding his persuasiveness and ideology of the morality of the other jurors. Juror no.8 single handedly voted against the grain and convinced other jurors of his logical reasons ‘it’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy of to die before talking about it first’. It was heroic of him to stand out against the others and the dramatic conclusion greatly attributed to his significant factor as the vote sway from 11-1 guilty to 12-0 for not guilty. Juror no.8 helped conveyed to the other jurors the boy's innocence. Persuading jurors in a chill mannerism whist jurors 3 and 10 were angry and impatient. Over the case juror no.8 was calm and reviewed the evidence taken from the prosecution and it's flaws. Juror no.8 constantly reviewed the evidence with other jurors presenting logical

Any jury trial is bound to have some sort of conflict involved when coming to a verdict. The portrayal of a murder case in the movie, 12 Angry Men, involves many different examples of conflict, as well as the approaches to conflict used by different characters. Almost every conversation in the film involves conflict, since the characters are all debating whether or not the boy being tried for murder is guilty or not, but there are a few scenes in which different types of conflict and different approaches to conflict seem to stand out.

It is the juror's responsibility to prove the boy guilty or not. Many of these jurors applied their biases to the way the boy grew up and was treated throughout his life. They have created false accusations that are not necessarily accurate. They argue that teenagers his age have no sense of morality or respect for their elders. Which could be a justifiable reasoning for the murder of his own father. Juror Three appears to be prejudiced towards the boy due to the fact that his own son resented him and moved out. It is not uncommon to develop an explicit bias after generalizing impressions from a personal experience and applying that to all groups of that kind such as age, religion, etc. As Juror Eight votes not guilty during a vote, the third juror becomes infuriated and disagrees while ranting about how the defendant is completely guilty due to evidence. Two different categories came into play as Juror Three expressed his feelings about his own son relating to the boy on

In trials like that of Casey Anthony, the mother arrested and charged with killing her two-year-old daughter Caylee, the popularity and widespread coverage of the case definitely influenced how citizens across the country believed Anthony should be sentenced (Document D). Anyone who saw one news story on the case that was then called to the jury probably already had formed their opinion on the status of Anthony’s innocence, without reviewing any court evidence. Consequently, their predisposed opinion, similar to the cats’ on the jury in Cartoon 3 of Document E, could have resulted in a weighted outcome. Also, the fear of a “wrong decision” made by the jury could have motivated a juror to vote solely for the outcome most popularly desirable. For example, Document D quotes Janine Gonzalez, a nearby member of Anthony’s community, as saying “She (Casey Anthony) better move and move to a faraway place.” Even though, in the end, Anthony was declared innocent, the fear of her life as well as the possible violence that could occur after the verdict could have been enough to sway a juror to convict her just to satisfy a popular

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.

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

The conflict created amongst the "12 Angry Men" in a courtroom drama film path the way the Constitution promised defendants a nondiscriminatory trial and the verdict based on their innocence before a jury. It has a blatant simplicity the “ 12 men debate the fate of a young defendant charged with murdering his father, neither the prosecutor or defense attorney, learn of the evidence basically second-handily when debated by the jurors. Often courtroom trial end with an undeviating verdict, but the "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant was found innocent or guilty instead, whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his

In this film, the numerous functional and dysfunctional properties of the 12-jury men play a big role in analysing and evaluating the main purpose at hand, namely identifying the young man guilty or innocent for the murder of his father.

Twelve Angry Men, a play by Reginald Rose, was written in 1955 at a time when America was involved in a cold war with communist countries. It shows the strength of a deliberative process that enables individuals, who have “nothing to gain or lose,” to reach a verdict. In the American jury system “everybody deserves a fair trial” and in Twelve Angry Men the defendant gets a very fair trial. All the jurors have their own opinions on the case but in the end a decision is made. The jury, and the audience, never discovers if in fact the defendant did murder his father. His guilt or innocence seems to be almost

12 Angry Men is a film originally produced in 1957 by Henry Fonda and Reginald Rose. It is about the journey 12 jurors go on to determine if a defendant is innocent or guilty. 12 Angry Men is a classic movie that is great for people learning different leadership styles, verbal and nonverbal cues, constructive/destructive conflict, and how ‘sidebar’ conversations impact a group’s ability to achieve their goal.

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.