Twelve Angry Men is a film that exemplafies many aspects of social psychology. In it, twelve jurors are tasked with deciding the fate of a boy accused of murder. The initial vote is eleven to one in facor of guilty. Gradually, through much intense discussion, all the jurors are swayed to vote not-guilty. The film highlights some of the key theories in social psychology, including confomityprejudice, and group polarization. Conformity is one of the first aspects of social psychology that is seen in the film. More specifically we see the idea of groupthink, or the tendancy to follow the percieved majority. Groupthink is seen almost immediately when the jurors are asked to give an initial vote. Most raised their hands in favor of “guilty,” which prompted a number of the others to follow suit. It was understood that the group would be voting one way, and anyone not sure simply did the same. The conformity aspect is seen primarily when the jurors are giving their reasons for …show more content…
thier votes. A prime example is the first juror who simply stated “I just think he’s quilty.” There’s no further explaination for this, no true reason for him to have voted guilty. But because most of the group was saying the same, he altered his opinion to match theirs. Prejudice is another prominent aspect seen in the film.
It is defined as the negative attitude towards an individual based soley on their social standing. This is seen primarily through the tenth juror, who is completely blinded by his knowledge of the defendant’s rather poor upbringing. He constantly condemns the boy as “one of them,” and refuses te believes that he could be anything more than a criminal. It could also be argued that prejudice is seen in the third juror. His view is very similar to the third juror in that he feverntly insists that the defendant has to be quilty. His negative opinion, however, is a projection of his feeling towards his own son. He sees them as very similar individuals, and lets that idea take over his judgement. This prejudice, seen in both jurors, gives them a clear path by which to take dicriminatory action. Despite the fact that neither knows the defendant personally, they are both willing to let him die simply because that cannot see past thier own
biases. Group polarization is a third theory that is seen. This again is represented mainly in the third a tenth juror and is defiend as the tendancy of people to become more extreme than their beliefs may actually warrant. These two jurors especially spend a lot of time vehemently driving in their points, whether it be by yelling or simply insulting the other group members.
a) Juror Three argued that the switchblade knife was swung down and in, which was ideal for the defendant considering he was shorter than his father. Juror Three stated, “‘Down and in. That’s how I’d stab a taller man in the chest and that’s how it was done.’” (Rose 61). This quote basically accounts for Juror Three’s beliefs with handling the knife.
Juror #10, a garage owner, segregates and divides the world stereotypically into ‘us’ and ‘them.’ ‘Us’ being people living around the rich or middle-class areas, and ‘them’ being people of a different race, or possessing a contrasting skin color, born and raised in the slums (poorer parts of town). It is because of this that he has a bias against the young man on trial, for the young man was born in the slums and was victim to domestic violence since the age of 5. Also, the boy is of a Hispanic descent and is of a different race than this juror, making him fall under the juror’s discriminatory description of a criminal. This is proven on when juror #10 rants: “They don’t need any real big reason to kill someone, either. You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone’s lying in the gutter… most of them, it’s like they have no feelings (59).
... I've lived among them all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars.” In this statement you can clearly tell his prejudice against the kid, just because of where he was raised. Juror # 10 and juror # 3 has prejudice against the kid. Juror # 3 has personal experience with a kid like the accused. “Reminded of his own family's personal crisis, Juror # 3 tells the jurors of his own disrespectful, teen aged boy who hit him on the jaw when he was 16. Now 22 years old, the boy hasn't been seen for two years, and the juror is embittered: "Kids! Ya work your heart out."” This is a direct example of juror # 3’s prejudice against the accused. When prejudice was in effect in the movie, it clouded the judgments of the jurors that were prejudice against the boy just because he was raised in the slums.
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
Throughout the movie, there are a numerous types of persuasion techniques are used both effective and ineffective. One is the use of stereotypes to try to win over the votes. Saying this such as “Slums in the breeding ground for criminals” literally claiming that he must be guilty just because of where he is from. An example of an effective method of persuasion used is when juror 8 started contemplating the old man’s witness testimony and the hearing of the yelling while the load un bearable train is going by. Also about the old man’s testimony about him running to the front door through a 40 + feet hallway in about 15 seconds. Juror 8 demonstrated the old man walking down the hall and having another juror time this demonstration to prove his point and to convince the other jurors that this was indeed not possible. Another example of persuasion is when juror 8 pulls out the exact same pocket knife that was used for the murder to show the rest of the jury that it is possible that the boy was telling the truth about the knife. Even juror 12 tried to persuade the jury to somewhat sympathize for him and to still vote for the defendant guilty by talking about his own relationship with his own son. Of course, there are many more examples throughout the movie but after all these different acts of persuasion were performed you do see jurors start to doubt their original perspective.
This video is about a group of 12 different men who are in a jury to determine whether or not a boy is guilty of murder. Even though before each of these jurors listened to how the case was explained, they still each had their own opinions on how it actually happened. When they began juror number 8 took his stand to say not guilty. This started the conflict between each of the jurors. Everyone wanted to argue that he was definitely guilty because of what they heard in the courtroom. Juror 8 made used some valid reasoning to convince juror 9 that the boy could possibly have been not guilty. Everyone else still continues to argue that the boy is guilty. Eventually with more reasoning others begin to understand how the boy could be proven not guilty.
...a unanimous vote of not guilty. The final scene takes place signifying the "adjourning stage". Two of the jurors, eight and three exchange the only character names mentioned during the film. The entire process of groupthink occurs in multiple ways that display its symptoms on individual behavior, emotions, and personal filters. These symptoms adversity affected the productivity throughout the juror's debate. In all, all twelve men came to an agreement but displayed group social psychological aspects.
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.
For this project we viewed the original 1957 version of Twelve Angry Men, an American Drama, adapted from the teleplay written by Reginald Rose with the same name starring Henry Fonda as the lead role.
The book said when conformity is "established, prejudice is maintained largely by inertia. If a prejudice is socially accepted, many people follow the path of least restriction and conform to the fashion. They will not act so much out of hate as out of a need to be liked and accepted". By this statement is this the reason why 11 jury members voted him guilty. Even the older jury member number 9 who defended the offender saying that only an ignorant man will believe that. However, later in the movie there was a scene that shows a prime example of conformity. When jury number 7 said I 'll tell you something I 'm a little sick of this whole thing already. We 're going nowhere fast let 's break it up and go home, I 'm changing my vote to not
Prejudice is the unjustified negative attitudes or prejudgments that some people hold against others of certain groups (Gale, 2016). Prejudice makes its way into every aspect of our lives, and importantly, in the justice system. Generally, characteristics such as age, gender, or background are prejudiced against the most. It has several causes, such as family beliefs, religious customs, cultural traditions and most importantly, societal beliefs and experiences. Moreover, the issue of prejudice can easily be identified within the justice system. Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, clearly shows prejudice in within the justice system by the jurors towards a young, Hispanic male on trial for the murder of his father. In the novel Monster, by Walter
At the outset, eleven jurors vote in favor of convicting the accused without even discussing a single shred of the evidence presented at the trial. When a group becomes too confident and fails to think realistically about its task, groupthink can occur. Since it takes a longer time to communicate and reach a consensus in a group, decision making in a group is time-consuming. Therefore, when groups want to achieve a quick decision, as several jurors were eager to do, they make riskier decisions than individuals. Since not any individual is completely accountable for the decision, members will have a tendency to accept more extreme solutions. Only one brave juror refused to vote guilty. Juror #8 refused to fall into the groupthink trap and ultimately saved an innocent man's life. He openly admits that he does not know whether the accused is guilty or innocent and that he finds it necessary to simply talk about the case. What follows is not only a discussion of the particular facts of the case, but also an intense ex...
One of his very first lines is, “I’ve never seen a guiltiter man in my life,” (12 Angry Men) when expressing his initial opinion of the defendant. It seems like he’s intent on sending this man off to die without even giving the case so much as a second glance, and at first it appears he might very well get his way. Luckily, eight sweeps in to try and reason with three and again save the day. While juror eight’s argument is based mostly on facts, juror three’s argument seems to be built on stereotypes and prejudices. Even after hearing evidence upon evidence about why the defendant is guilty, three stubbornly doesn’t budge. Until finally it’s revealed why. “It’s the kids...they don’t listen. I’ve got a kid. When he was fifteen he hit me in the face. Haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids!” juror three eventually admits. In other words, three is taking his anger about his relationship issues with his son out on the defendant. This is an example of a juror bringing past emotions and prejudices into the courtroom, much like juror two. Three’s frequent bursts of anger and lashing out at other jurors is represented in diagram one by the thick, pointy, dark red line that borders his prickly and sharp figure. Inside the shape, the diagram shows red to represent anger and bitterness. The blue oval represents that three’s anger comes from sadness. This is best shown at the end of the play when three rips up a picture of his son into pieces in anger. Then later he breaks down on the floor, crying out “Not guilty.” Deep down three knew that the defendant was not guilty, but his anger and sadness towards his son drove him to want to see the boy punished, even if it was for a crime he never actually
The author presents the screenplay 12 angry men as prejudice. Ths movie could reflect on the racism that was going on during the Civil Rights Movement. There is 12 jurors and the defendant is an 18 year old Cuban boy that was accused for stabbing and murdering his father, the jurors will decide if he is guilty or innocent. The 12 jurors will be in a room of the court and they will be there until all of the 12 jurors decide if he is guilty or innocent. Juror number 8 was the first one who voted not guilty and the other eleven jurors voted guilty and this shows that everyone can have a different perspective on how they see things. Juror number eight wanted to go deeper into the case.
Leaders today are lauded less for their ability to achieve compromises in governance than for their unwavering, absolute belief that their position is the right one. Our society seems to have lost its understanding that the dynamic world we live in makes little room for absolute rights and wrongs. Challenging the seemingly intransient onset of stalwartness as a standard of leadership are small but significant voices from the past, reminders that no truth we ever attach ourselves to can ever be proven absolutely true. One such challenge comes from Twelve Angry Men, playwright Reginald Roses’ ceaselessly relevant story of a jury and the moral challenges it faces in rendering a verdict. Over the course of his now famous text, Rose highlighted