Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The jurors individual behavior in 12 angry men
The jurors individual behavior in 12 angry men
How movies sterortypes ethnic groups
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The jurors individual behavior in 12 angry men
In this tense, conlfict-filled, voltaic film, a group of 12 jurors were featured who must decide the guilt or innocence of an accused murder of a kid. Initially eleven of the jurors voted “guilty” while only one juror believe the kid did not commit the crime. However, through heated discussion, the jurors gradually changed to a “not guilty” verdict at the end. Conformity played a huge role in the beginning of the film. It refers to the tendency of people to align their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors with those around them. It's a powerful force that can take the form of overt social pressure or subtler unconscious influence. The twelve sat down in a room complaining how hot it was without air conditioning and toke their initial vote publicly. …show more content…
Gordon Abra TA: Lauren Keblusek Take Home Final Exam without providing any valid reasons why when the majority voted “guilty.” Therefore, it strongly suggests that there was strong pressure to conform to the majority. The juror played by Henry Fonda was the only one who voted “not guilty," yet, deliberation was forced to continue due to the requirement of an unanimous jury. As a result, The jurors reacted violently against this dissenting vote by Henry Fonda because some of them wanted to get over with the case as soon possible since they have somewhere else to be. For example, Jack Warden (the baseball guy) said it out loud that he had a baseball game to catch. Therefore, they decided to convince and persuade him into complying to the majority decision by going around the table and explained why they believe the boy to be guilty. Ed Begley (the racist guy) referred to the boy as a slum kid and made stereotypical as well as racist remarks such as slum kids who belong to certain ethnic groups are inherently rotten. There was an internal attributions which lead to his verdict of “guilty”. This immediately put Jack Klugman (former slum kid) who was born and raised in the slum on rage and argued back that being a slum kid has nothing correlated with criminal acts. In the beginning, Jack Klugman was not very vocal about his option, and seemed to be unsure about whether or not the boy was guilty. However, after Ed Begley’s racists remake on the bot being a slum …show more content…
For example, the jurors failed to notice that the old man who claimed to have seen saw the boy running down the stairs was lying because he walked with a limp which made it impossible for him to walk from his room to down stairs in 15 secs. Moreover, they also failed to realize that a noisy train would have made it impossible to hear the boy yell, “I’m gonna kill ya.” All of these details would have disconfirmed their expectations, but were overlooked, which suggests a confirmation bias occurred. It refers to the tendency of only seeking information that confirms one’s already existed preconception, opinions or expectations and ignore disconfirming
The play, ‘Twelve Angry men’, written by Reginald Rose, explores the thrilling story of how twelve different orientated jurors express their perceptions towards a delinquent crime, allegedly committed by a black, sixteen-year-old. Throughout the duration of the play, we witness how the juror’s background ordeals and presumptuous assumptions influence the way they conceptualise the whole testimony itself.
The jurors took a vote and saw the ratio at eleven for guilty and only one for not guilty. When they repeatedly attacked his point of view, his starting defense was that the boy was innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite as the others had seen it. After Henry Fonda instilled doubt in the mind of another juror, the two worked together to weaken the barriers of hatred and prejudice that prevented them from seeing the truth. The jurors changed their minds one at a time until the ratio stood again at eleven to one, this time in favor of acquittal. At this point, the jurors who believed the defendant was not guilty worked together to prove to the one opposing man that justice would only be found if they returned a verdict of not guilty. They proved this man wrong by using his personal experiences in life to draw him into a series of deadly contradictions.
Prejudices cause peoples’ perceptions to be altered. The jurors are presented quite a bit about the boy’s background, and his records. Juror Ten struggles to see past the stereotypes and judges the boy based on his past actions. Juror Ten claims,” He’s a common ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English,” (326). What is so ironic about this statement is that Ten claims the boy is dense and bases this claim on the fact that he can’t speak English well. However as corrected by Eleven, it is “doesn’t” not “does”. Perhaps the boy learned from his mistakes and sought to change. That is what life is all about. We fall down and hopefully learn from our mistakes so that we can create a better future for ourselves. Juror Ten is firmly set on the idea that the court covered everything by repeatedly saying, “They proved it,’’ on page 317. Unlike Eight he is not open-minded. As a juror it is important to be skeptics because the in court, lawyers may have presented information in such a way that information is perceived differently. Also crucial information may have not have been analyzed carefully. It’s important not to dwell on the past; its also keep prejudices from exposing you to
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
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).
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,...
... 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.
Juror Eight stood up for what he believed in against eleven other jurors, and eventually influenced them all to reach the verdict of not-guilty. At the end of the case, when the jury is about to come to a final decision, Juror Eight says to Juror Three “It’s not your boy. He’s somebody else.
He believes that a kid from a place like that isn’t any good. The next character is Edward James Olmos (#11) for the first half of the movie he was very quiet and walked around, but once he changed his vote to not guilty he became very kind and helpful. Something he said when he was standing up for the kid was, “ to say one is capable of committing murder
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
...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.
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
...ted by peer pressure. At the end of the play, after all the other jurors joined up with Juror 8, Juror 3 was the only one who still voted ‘guilty’. This time, Juror 3’s perseverance collapsed and he finally voted on ‘not guilty’. Juror 3 is obviously not as brave as Juror 8 as to stand up for his singular thought on the crime. A reason for this might be because he doesn’t have the intelligence to use good arguments to prove his stance.
Throughout the entire course of the movie, Juror #8(Henry Fonda), utilizes several different tactics, perspectives and approaches to influence the decision of other jurors. Internally-focused tactics (Power and Influence, slide 16) arguably served a key role in altering the attitudes of other jurors and making them reconsider their position. He used rational persuasion (Power and Influence, slide 16) by laying out facts that none of the other jurors thought about. He made more external attributions for the boy’s behavior commenting that a possible reason would be his abusive slum upbringing rather than his character. He was successful in sowing seeds of doubt in the minds of other jurors simply by asking
In the film juror 8, played by Henry Fonda, does not have any official authority beyond that of the other 11 jurors. However, without any positional power, Juror 8 is able to persuade the others to switch their votes from guilty to not guilty (12 Angry Men). John K. Clemens, professor and author on leadership observes, “What’s tricky about persuasion is discerning the difference between getting others to think as you do, an obnoxious and risky use of power, and getting others to investigate themselves to discover common truths and facts – truths that transcend preference, prejudice, fear, and competitive jockeying. The courtroom drama [in 12 Angry Men], as a result, is usually a loud wakeup call” (Lee).