Twelve Angry Men

Juror 3 was basing his failed relationship with his son on the accused boy. The reason that he had such a bad relationship with his son is because when the boy was young, he ran away from a fight and Juror 3 said: “I’m going to make a man out of you or I’m going to bust you up into little pieces trying”. Later on, when his son was older, they got into a fight and Juror 3 hasn’t seen him since. This experience probably left him the impression that all kids take their loved ones for granted, and that they deserve severe punishments. Juror 3 is not the type to provide the sharpest evidence or information, but he is very determined to prove that the accused really did murder the victim. Juror 8 practically gives nothing away about his real life, probably because he did not want to add his own prejudices to the case. Juror 3 gave both his ill-mannered personality and bigotry away in the play.

The argument started out with juror #8 stating that he didn’t know if the kid was guilty or not, he just believed that there were a lot of holes in the case that would lead him to believe there is reasonable doubt in the conviction. Though this seemed like a weak argument, there were many different key points that were made to undermine the original argument. Jumping from one fact to the next, juror #8 eventually persuaded the entire group to change their vote to not guilty. Juror #8, when presenting the various portions of his argument, always remains calm, as well as the other men who eventually join his side. Juror #4, though on the original position, actually provides a lot of this logical approach. He admits that the opposition makes sense and when the argument overrides his, he admits he is wrong and changes his vote. This type of argument, when proven with ethos and pathos, is successful and will gain logical support to win the overall

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

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

Juror #8 is a calm and reasonable man which makes it easier for him to judge the case fairly and justly without any prejudice. Juror #8 never said he believed the defendant to be innocent he only wanted to take the role of being a juror seriously and talk about the case before a young boy is sent off to die. “I’m not trying to change your mind it’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here… we can’t decide in five minutes.” Because he brings no prejudice in the jury room he is able to look at the facts and carefully decide on his judgement. Juror #8 recognizes other peoples prejudice and tries not to convince them that the boy is innocent but to have them let go of that prejudice and decide based on the facts whether they truly believe the defendant is guilty or not. Rose uses both juror

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.

I want to hear more. The vote in ten to two,” (Rose 25). As you can see, Juror #8 changes his vote to “Not Guilty”, even though he thinks it's wrong, but it’s for the right reason because he is giving his support to Juror #9, who feels strongly about the defendant being innocent even though there was a murder. This shows that Juror #8 cares about justice and is willing to stand up against a crowd to do what he thinks is right. At the end of the deliberation, the vote is 11 for not guilty and 1 for guilty, and Juror #3 stand alone. The 8th and 4th Jurors both make a short and final plea, and the 3rd Juror finally concedes, saying, Alright, Not Guilty,” (Rose 63). Furthermore, Juror #3 strongly believes that the defendant is guilty, but he has to vote not guilty, because it is the right decision even though he believes it is wrong. Juror #3 votes not guilty because even though he thinks the decision is wrong, because it is not easy to send off a boy to die when the vote is 11 guilty and 1 guilty. This shows that Juror #3 is doing something right and voting ¨Not Guilty¨ which was against his wishes. In conclusion, Juror #3 and #8 both make conscious decisions supporting what is right even though, in someway, they thought the defendant was guilty.

Daily there are thousands of people being found guilty for a crime they did not commit because of a prejudiced judge.Sidney Lumet and Reginald Rose the writers and directors of 12 Angry Men wrote and produced a play about 12 jurors that briefly discuss a trial and come to a verdict , personal issues develop which causes conflict and only makes the process more grueling. The accused boy is being found guilty for murdering his father, 12 jurors are put in a hot room in New York and spend hours briefly viewing the scenario. Although one might think that the justice system should be left in the hands of citizens ,the director and writer of 12 Angry Men , Sidney Lumet and Reginald Rose demonstrate that the United States justice system is unfair and is simply corrupt , inefficient , and injustice due to the jurors biases minds, ignorant attitude ,and the lack of time and energy put in the trial while trying to decide a verdict.

Once the group completed this juror 8 asked for a secret ballot. He stated he would not participate in the vote, and if all 11 jurors voted guilty he would follow suit. At this exact time the shift of power moved from the foreman to juror 8. Also, at this time the group moved from the storming stage towards the norming stage. As the votes came back all but one vote was guilty. This action set the group towards the next step of performing. The other jurors felt there was more to the guilty verdict than they experienced from the onset of the deliberations. Juror 8 at this moment solidified his leadership position by requesting the foreman to ask for the knife and the floor layout of the apartment. As it happens juror 8 was able to cast doubt amongst all the jurors by obtaining the same knife the boy supposedly killed his father with. Next, juror 8 walked off the distance the eyewitness (Who had a stroke a year before) had to walk in the middle of the night to see the defendant leaving his father's apartment. Then the group asked

But that statement made the third juror made saying he’d kill the 8th juror, but earlier in the play that’s exactly what the boy said to his father hours before the killing, and to the audience it shows how things can be used as an exaggeration. So, once that happens the votes are tied. Juror 8 now breaks apart the fact that the boy couldn’t remember the movies he supposedly saw, but says in that kind of state of trauma it could be difficult. They also discuss how the murderer used a switchblade the wrong way, and that there was no way that the boy would use it the wrong was as he was very experienced. Juror 8 goes on and sees if it was also actually possibly for the other witness (the woman) to actually see the murder. They test it as well and find it also highly unlikely that she put on her glasses in time enough for her to see. So, all that’s left on the “guilty” verdict is 10 and 8, and 10 changes his verdict to “not guilty” after being quickly shut down about his comments. So, now that only 8 is left, they have a somewhat difficult time convincing him, but he does change his verdict to “not guilty”. The story ends with the rain stopping and the knife still sticking in the

Within the Henry Fonda film "Twelve Angry Men", there were many occasions where the behavior and actions of the jurors were affected by numerous causes or variables. A few of these causes consist of: schemas and heuristics, memory, stereotypes or norms, and conformity. These causes or variables are able to be attributed to the sociocultural and cognitive level of analysis in psychology. Within the movie, there are twelve jurors - whose names are not given till the end – who are debating and deciding upon weather a teenaged boy should be incarcerated due to accusations of the boy killing his own father.

When they all came into the deliberation room, everyone seemed to be getting along together. After the first vote, eleven of the twelve jurors turned against the one who voted not guilty. This one juror slowly begin to gain relationships with the other jurors and begin to win their trust in what he was saying. There were also points when relationships were troubled due to prejudice. The juror who was not from the United States and the juror from the poorer part of town were both discriminated against due to where they were from hindering the relationship of the group. In the end, I think they had a built a relationship that trusted each other.

Juror number 8 appears to be the most thoughtful and heroic of those around him, having lots of sympathy for the defendant in this case, he has to uphold his resolve and be willing to fight for the reasonable doubt in this case. Because of this, I believe that he has a strong open aspect to his personality, high level of agreeableness, as well as conscientiousness that provides him with the courage and empathy needed to fight for a young mans life. He doesn’t appear to have any abnormal psychology, because his role in the movie is to maintain a voice of reason while surrounded by people who need a little guidance. Juror number 3, in many ways, is the villain when compared Juror number 8. Juror number 3 is hot tempered and instantly voices his feelings about the simplicity of the case, and how discussion is unnecessary because the boy is obviously guilty. But, it is revealed that Juror number 3 has high prejudices towards this boy because of his problems with his own son. His neuroticism and being low on the scale of agreeableness and conscientiousness mixed with a possible anger or alcohol problem, provide the main conflict for the movie, a fight for what is right and what is wrong and is the last of the jurors to vote not guilty. Juror number 4 is a man of facts, a stock broker who is consistently urging the other jurors not to vote based on their emotions but on the evidence that was presented during the trial. His vote is only swayed when the last eye witness, who claims to have seen the murder, is discredited. His conscientiousness, in this case, is what kept him from seeing reason, even after all other “facts” were proven to be doubtful, he held his resolve until every single detail of the case were absolutely proven incorrect. Juror

The reason for a group of jurors is to determine if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The goal of the twelve men participating in the group was to determine a unanimous verdict based off of the information provided during the murder trial. Juror one started out as the leader of the group by asking the members to sit in order of their juror number around the table, discussing the task, and by providing the group with different options on how the meeting would take place. He repeated what the outcome would be if the young boy is found guilty and told the group that the first vote would be done by ballots. The members take their first vote and juror one tallies up the votes. In the beginning of the meeting most members had a negative attitude and just wanted the meeting to be over with. Some joked about the process and discussed other matters that they believed to be more important. Juror seven discussed a ball game that was occurring later that day and thought the game was more important than the verdict. “Discussions are usually superficial during forming, centering around historic or future events that do not have a direct impact on the group or its members” (Gladding, 2012, p.

12 Angry Men is a 1957-drama film that tells the story of a jury’s deliberation in determining the guilt or acquittal of the defendant. All jury members are older white gentleman with strong personalities. The wide ranges of personalities tend to cause conflict and tension among the group of men. Throughout the film these men work on many consensus-building techniques but often come across difficulties during the process. Luckily, they are provided with a leader who maintains organization, order and equal opportunities for all jurors to speak. Juror one, who is also known as the foreman, is given the job of leading the jurors to come to a unanimous decision. The foreman is a smaller gentleman who seems to be impressed by the authority he has, which puts hurdles in his leadership skills.