Juror 8 12 Angry Men

Twelve Angry Men was mainly a movie focused on a twelve-man jury’s discussion in a capital murder case. The case was about an eighteen year old boy who was blamed for murdering his own father. It was a first-degree murder trial, which meant a guilty decision would be an automatic death punishment. Prior to the deposition, the jurors casted votes and because the suspect had a criminal record and many incidental proofs accumulated against him, eleven of the jurors voted “guilty.” Only one person of the twelve-man jury, juror eight who was the protagonist, voted “not guilty.” As the discussion begun, the jurors learned about personalities and background of other participants of the jury. And gently, juror eight directed them toward a conclusion of “Not Guilty” with an exception of juror three, the antagonist, who was the last person to change his decision. In the movie, juror eight and juror three played a big role in informal leadership because they both provided different points of view and helped lead to effective and ethical group decision-making.

Juror eight, a thoughtful and a gentle person, was depicted as the bravest juror of the jury because of his behavior and leadership style.

Even though he was dissatisfied with the way the trial was being controlled and faced with much antagonism, he continued to support for the boy. Juror eight wanted to examine the evidence in more depth because he was very keen to justice, and was compassionate toward the nineteen-year-old suspect. He used different strategies to find the trust about the murder, which includes thinking outside of the box and picturing different variations of the same circumstance. His behavior of inspiring others to share their views and linking with them on a personal level helped him to show the right path. His democratic and affiliative style kept the discussion going and to a conclusion without any major

disputes.
Juror three is a stubborn and short-tempered person. Juror three made solid sentiments in the beginning, which actively kept him involved in the discussion, but he started losing control as the discussion continued. Because he disliked Juror eight, the argument between them strengthened the discussion. His loud and demanding personality made jurors go against his claim because his rage was intolerable by others. Later in the discussion, it was also revealed that he had a poor relationship with his own son, which led to believe that this was one of the causes to his intolerance against the suspect. When Juror three understood that he is only presenting an insight of his feelings regarding his own son onto the suspect, he changed his decision.
I don’t believe that the suspect had a jury of his peers. He is a teenage Latino with a jury of old white men. Even though there was diversity in their economic backgrounds, the 12 men were still from the same culture background. If the jury were more culturally diverse, it would have been more difficult for them to reach a verdict; especially during the time the movie took place. With more diversity come more barriers to overcome in order to agree on a topic or situation. In today’s society, being more open and understanding, these barriers would be easier to overcome.