Conformity, Obedience And Conformity In 12 Angry Men

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the movie, 12 Angry Men, and apply the concepts that I have learned thus far. In doing so, I will apply the key concepts of conformity, obedience, persuasion, group influence, and prejudice. 12 Angry Men is about the jury deliberations of 12 men as they decide if a young Puerto Rican man, who is accused of killing his father, is guilty or not guilty.
At the start of the jury deliberations, Juror #1, Martin Balsam, the amicable jury foreman, wanted to achieve the goal of keeping the jury proceedings in order. He suggested a preliminary vote and six of the jurors - numbers 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 12 - quickly put their hands up to vote “guilty”. Then due to peer pressure, jurors numbered 2, 5, 6, 9 and 11 hesitantly joined them in voting “guilty”. Only Juror # 8 opposed them stating that he was uncertain whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty - he was not convinced that the prosecution proved that the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this preliminary vote, there was considerable “social loafing” - the tendency of people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts toward a common goal than when they are individually accountable (Myers, p. 272). The eleven jurors had quickly decided that the accused was guilty. Before some of the jurors eventually began to change their minds about their “guilty” vote due to the discussion that ensued, the jurors were caught up in “group think” – the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence – seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action (Myers, p. 290).
Juror # 8, Henry Fonda, an architect, exerted a minority infl...

... middle of paper ...

...ve about themselves i.e. my mother is a nurse and I might have difficulty as a juror on a nursing malpractice case since I would be thinking about my mother. The trial lawyers should also compare verbal and non- verbal communication since they would be wise to exclude people, who state one belief, but actually believe an opposing view. Additionally, they should seek to exclude jurors who have had personally relevant life experiences similar to the trial case. These jurors can easily persuade other jurors since they may serve as experts, due to their experiences, during deliberations. In conclusion, trial lawyers should never be prejudiced and exclude jurors based on the color of their skin,

nationality, sex, educational level, sexual orientation etc., and conversely they should seek to exclude jurors that are prejudiced against the accused to ensure a fair trial.