The Verdict

very complex personalities. These personalities range from the wise, bright and empathetic to the arrogant or prejudiced and even merciless. This provides the immediate backdrop to Mr. Davis' attempts to convince the other jurors that a "not guilty" verdict might be appropriate

Angry Men, justice takes a great importance in deciding the fate of the defendant. In act two, Juror Eleven includes a remarkable statement about strength and fairness in decision-making. Eleven states, “…we have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the reasons in why we are strong. We should not make it a personal thing” (Rose 333). Since Juror Eleven was a refugee from Europe, he shows that since he finally is able to disagree or share his opinion, that it should not affect

12 Angry Men and Groupthink The movie “12 Angry Men,” is one that begins with a judge talking about the circumstances that surround a murder trial where a judge sends the jury off to deliberate on their verdict. Throughout the movie the twelve men struggle between deciding if the defendant if guilty or not guilty for the crime of murdering his own father. If found guilty, the young boy will be sentenced to death. The twelve men spend their time in a hot room debating if this boy is truly guilty

are tied together and brought into view. As the final jurors holding on to a ‘guilty’ stance reveal their real reasons for upholding a guilty verdict, the film hits its climax and the men break down. The very last shot in 12 Angry Men is a wide-angle shot on the outside of the courthouse. The wide-angle shot is perfect closure. The jurors have reached a verdict, the men are disseminated, and we can all finally breathe again. This openness in this shot represents a relief in the tension that we saw rise

system. The major differences today would be we do not discriminate based upon age, race or gender. All three of these factors would influence how the jurors would interact with one another and would eventually have a major impact on the final verdict. Juror 8 was so successful in convincing the other 11 jurors for two simple facts. He demonstrated assertiveness and use of reason. While his peers and the foreman fell into a group think mentality from the

stands up for the boy on trial to live. Juror 8 is a sharp-witted man with. He views his job to be taken seriously, unlike Juror 7 who makes it undoubtedly clear that he would rather be at the ball game rather than in the jury room, making the final verdict. Juror 8 stands up against a large group of men who disagree

To be a good juror there are a few key elements I believe are required. One good key element to have while being a juror is to listen effectively and take very good notes. You want to be able to have a very clear understanding of the case and take notes if you later forget minor details and want to remember. A second, key element to have while being a juror is to ask good questions. Being able to ask good questions can open up a more clear understanding of the case. Lastly, you want to listen and

from the jurors such as social influence, majority influence, specific motivation and egoism. This shows different attitudes and opinions the jurors have. One man out of twelve jurors decides to take on a room of eleven stubborn jurors as given the verdict of not guilty. The eleven jurors elected for the kid to be guilty and refused to think otherwise until the one non guilty juror decided to step up and discuss the situation. The majority of the jurors seem very impatient and anxious to get out of

Monster Argumentative Essay The United States judicial system says that you are innocent until proven guilty. In language arts class we read a book called Monster, by Walter Dean Myers. Monster is about a 16 year old boy named Steve Harmon, and how he had to go on a trial for felony murder. The book is set as if Steve is making a screenplay. At the end of the book Steve is proven innocent, and free to go, but I believe that there was not enough information for Steve to be proven guilty. The jury

Juror eight, who changes the initial 11 to 1 ratio with the majority of jurors supporting the guilty verdict, is an example of an informal leader. His position is best explained by the Contingency Leadership Theory because it arises from a specific situation, wherein he can perform at a maximum level because he is driven by a reasonable doubt. Juror eight cannot vote in favor of the guilty verdict, yet at the same time, he does not claim that the defendant is guilty, until he is presented with reasonable