The Verdict

deliberation in the murder case, Mr. Davis, Juror 8, refused to base his vote on just hard-core facts. His decision to rule not guilty spurred a rise out of the remaining 11 jurors, who strongly believe the defendant is guilty. Mr. Davis’s initial verdict formed a cooperative community within the jury waiting room that allowed for each of the jurors to present the basis of their decisions. His willingness to stand-alone proved to be a key decision in the film, which provided the backdrop for

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

My initial vote in the Reginald Chase case was of not guilty. According to my perception, the evidence presented was not enough to convict him of murder. Vast majority of the group “A” members were inclined to acquit Chase for the same reason. The deliberation turned out interesting and somehow tense when one of the jurors decided to vote guilty. Although many group members tried to make him reflect on his decision presenting strong arguments, this seemed to irritate him and cling to his decision

Twelve Angry Men is a play filmed in New York City in 1957. It took place in a court law of jury room where they were deliberating a murder trial. They were accusing a young boy of murdering his father with a knife. They were several witnesses that claim that they heard and saw the murder and the boy yelling “I am going to kill you”. However, the knife that the young boy claimed that he lost was found in the murder. Twelve men were sent to be jurors to deliberate the trial. If the young boy was found

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

There are a number of testimonies against him, and his alibi is faulty. A unanimous guilty verdict by the jury will reserve him a spot in the electric chair, and his chances of being proven innocent seem little to none. Yet, in the story "12 Angry Men", through the time consuming process of reading over and picking apart each piece of evidence in a painfully careful manner, a jury comes to a final verdict of not guilty. It was originally written as a teleplay by Reginald Rose in 1954, but then later

against the boy. Juror Eight isn’t a hero. He isn’t doing this to save the boy because he cares about him. In fact, if there was solid evidence that the boy committed the crime, Juror Eight wouldn’t hesitate to give the twelfth vote for a guilty verdict. Rather, Juror Eight is a token of justice that is blind to all

This commonality is a superficial factor that added to the group’s cohesion. The main factor is that they all share the same goal which is to reach a verdict. The cohesion of the group is further enforced by the fact that the door is locked and the group cannot leave until such time that they all agree on the verdict without contest. The locked door forced them to become cohesive as well as the duty. Originally there was a sense of group cohesion towards the beginning of the movie

well I’ve got one, a boy twenty-two years old….When he was sixteen we had a battle. He hit me in the face! He’s big y’know. I haven’t seen him in two years. Rotten kid. You work your heart out…”’ Juror#3 (190). Juror three has just proven that his verdict is not based on the facts presented, but though on his relationships with his own son. If the law system has Jurors’ like him

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