Conflicting Values In 12 Angry Men

The 1957 film “12 Angry Men” is about a twelve-person jury attempting to decide the fate of a young boy who is accused of stabbing his father. Packed in a hot, small deliberation room, constant conflict and tension amounts between the twelve-jury members. Most of this is due to the fact each of these jury members have their own personal biases and perceptions of the case. While it could be considered a negative, this seems to be one of the main purposes of having a twelve-person jury. With having a twelve-person jury it can bring about certain disadvantages, but a clear advantage is that these jury members have their own background, experiences and views that ultimately can help to bring attention to certain details that other jury members

One noticeable conflicting value is in regards to Juror #10’s value in ridding the streets of the Hispanic defendant. From the beginning, Juror #10 makes his bigotry known to the group, which makes most of the members either offended or uncomfortable. As the man repeats his ignorant belief that most people from the slums are likely to commit crimes, Juror #5, who grew up in the slums, has an obvious conflicting view of the matter and ultimately turns away from the bigotry. From this obvious stance against Juror #10, one by one each jury member begins to ignore Juror #10. While the jury members may not be able to rid Juror #10 of his bigotry, these jury members actually form an interest group in order to objectively silence and remove this conflict. From this not only does Juror #10 fall silent, but also ultimately his bias falls to the extent that he votes not

Most of his perspectives are based off of his rational, serious and fact based personality. While he is not shy to speak, he definitely is more reserved and only feels the need to speak up when he feels as though it is important. One instance of his command personality is when Juror #10 is attempting to get the attention of the other jurors with his bigotry comments and Juror #4 is able to intimidate and silence him by telling him to sit down and not speak again. He is analytical like this mainly because of the fact he is a stockbroker and thus has to focus on facts and figures. Additionally I feel as though stockbrokers have to be very serious and driven personalities, which would explain why he focused on the facts and was one of the last of the jurors to switch his vote until he was met with new