...young boy’s guilt to ‘reasonable doubt’. Initially, the blind prejudice obscures the pathway to the truth. Some Jurors are influenced by the defendant’s social background, race and age which crease the Jurors to deliberate the case focused on facts. However, it leads to verdict of ‘not guilty’ due to the 8th Juror who has a reasonable doubt about the boy’s guilty and doesn’t condemn a man to death without discussing the case first. Some jurors also has sympathy for the boy meanwhile the 8th Juror has the conscience to consider the case honestly and thoughtfully. The prejudice attitudes with the less sympathetic of some jurors exceed the compassion and conscience at first. When they- WHO? YOU MUST USE PRONOUNS CORRECTLY- first enter the jury room, many jurors are ready to convict the defendant, not just on the evidence presented by the prosecution but just because the boy was born in slums. As the 4th juror says ‘Slums are breeding grounds for criminals.’ The boy can’t receive any respect and no doubt to have criminal behaviours. The hatred is apparently represent by the jurors ‘these people are born to lie, they are different.’ The inflexible idea in the jurors mind is that the person who comes from the slums must be bad-behaviour and definitely commit the murder if someone against him. ‘They’re violent, they’re vicious, they’re ignorant.’ Moreover, the 3rd Juror generalises his difficult experiences with his own son into a prejudice against young people ‘It’s the kids, the...
Words: 762 - Pages: 4
...12 Angry Men Script from Flim The Twelve Jurors: A summary of the anonymous characters helps to flesh out their characters and backgrounds. The order in which each eventually decides to vote "not guilty" is given in brackets: * Juror #1 (The Foreman): (Martin Balsam) A high-school assistant head coach, doggedly concerned to keep the proceedings formal and maintain authority; easily frustrated and sensitive when someone objects to his control; inadequate for the job as foreman, not a natural leader and over-shadowed by Juror # 8's natural leadership [9] * Juror #2: (John Fiedler) A wimpy, balding bank clerk/teller, easily persuaded, meek, hesitant, goes along with the majority, eagerly offers cough drops to other men during tense times of argument; better memory than # 4 about film title [5] * Juror #3: (Lee J. Cobb) Runs a messenger service (the "Beck and Call" Company), a bullying, rude and husky man, extremely opinionated and biased, completely intolerant, forceful and loud-mouthed, temperamental and vengeful; estrangement from his own teenaged son causes him to be hateful and hostile toward all young people (and the defendant); arrogant, quick-angered, quick-to-convict, and defiant until the very end [12] * Juror #4: (E. G. Marshall) Well-educated, smug and conceited, well-dressed stockbroker, presumably wealthy; studious, methodical, possesses an incredible recall and grasp of the facts of the case; common-sensical, dispassionate, cool-headed and rational...
Words: 6915 - Pages: 28
...In Reginald Rose’s play ’12 Angry Men’ the jurors not only let their prejudices affect their opinions they have towards the accused, but also their opinions of each other. Jurors three, ten and four show strong prejudice against the accused purely as he is from the slums and claim that he is guilty on this point alone, whereas juror five is more reluctant to think badly of the boy as he also grew up in the slums. Many of the juror’s prejudices against people from the slums make juror five too nervous to initially speak or express his opinion and his opinion is not taken as seriously because he is seen to be just trying to defend the accused as they both grew up in the slums. Many of the jurors also do not take juror nine seriously and do not believe he will have any valuable points to make purely because he is an elderly man. Conflict is started when juror seven changes his vote. As he originally stated that he wanted to get out of the jury as soon as possible to watch the ball game the other jurors have the preconception that anything he does will be a strategic move so that he can leave, rather than doing what is best for the case. Throughout the play juror three makes comments about his son and towards the end it becomes clear that he was being prejudiced towards the accused purely because it reminded him of his son, who he does not get along with. Most of the jurors are prejudiced towards the accused based on the fact that he has grown up in the slums, some prejudices favourable...
Words: 1349 - Pages: 6
...case. Juror 8 is willing to stand alone with his vote “not guilty”. Trying to avoid the winner’s course, he demanded a conversation about the case despite the clear 11-1 vote on the guilt of the defendant. Juror 8 discredits his opponents’ arguments and uncovers their constraint thinking, he uncovering doubtful evidence, alienating hardliners and engaging in conversations. In the conversation it becomes obvious that not every juror bases his decision on the same facts, and therefore it is not possible to only have one strategy to convince all. Knowing about the intentions and roots in a negotiation increases the own power and also the ability to tackle those biases and perception errors efficiently. Communication errors and strategies to overcome those In the following, different communication errors and biases of the jurors are analysed, as well as the tactics Henry, Juror 8, is using to overcome those. The first statements in the movie already indicate whether the juror will be a potential opponent, a convincible, or one an early ally for Henry. Juror 4 relays on logical arguments and basis everything on numbers. Blinded by his logic he lacks the ability to put himself in the shoes of the accused. This biased behavior can be tracked back to the selective perception bias and overconfidence. Therefore he is unable to make sense of the fact that his world might be wrong. Juror 8 is only able to convince him by uncovering flaws in his logic and by encouraging Juror 4 to...
Words: 1482 - Pages: 6
...12 Angry Men Briefly summarize each act of the play. Act I: After hearing a case of a young man who is accused of killing his father and is now on trial, the twelve jurors enter a vacant room to discuss the trial. If the twelve jurors find him guilty the mandatory sentence is the death penalty. The twelve men take a vote and they all find the young man guilty except for one juror… the 8th juror. The other jurors become angry with him for making it a difficult process but decide to go around the table to discuss why they think the young man is guilty in attempt to change the 8th jurors mind. The 8th juror is still sure in his decision and explains to the other jurors that the murder weapon could've been available to anyone, it wasn't one of a kind. He proves this by displaying his own replica of the murder weapon, shocking the other jurors....
Words: 957 - Pages: 4
...movie might be for anyone working with communities and organizations to change behaviour for the better. Compressed into an intense and claustrophobic 96 minutes, the script and performances do a wonderful job of highlighting and exaggerating some big points when it comes to behaviour change. It’s kind of like a mini test-lab of social norms, nudging and the power of emotion all mixed up and working together. I’ve put together a little summary of the five observations that stood out for me. It’s by no means exhaustive, but captures a few ideas that kept popping up after. #1 – Looking up and out In the early scene of the movie, as the jurors start to gather around the table, Henry Fonda’s character (Juror #8) deliberately separates himself from the group. He moves at his own pace, walks over to the window and looks out, and is the 2nd last Juror to seat himself at the table. It’s pretty clear that while he’s sizing up the group and their mood, he’s being careful to separate himself from the group, and maintain a different perspective. I think this is an interesting image to keep in mind when kicking off any behaviour change initiative. It’s important to seek a different point of view and start seeing the bigger picture – to look up and out. By looking up at the environment, you can start to size up the surrounding conditions and environment that are contributing to why people do the things they do. And by looking out, you can seek inspiration in unusual and surprising places...
Words: 1565 - Pages: 7
...The storm can reflect the juror’s feelings. The play was set in NY 1957 which is the hottest day in the year. The storm is brewing. As tempers fray and patient was tested, the prejudice of some jurors was revealed. In ACT 2 there is the “calm” before the storm, and just like the weather, the impending storm within is about to erupt. “The sound of the rain “is heard, but no respite is achieved within the room. The rain which then “splashes in” the window is closed off- symbolizing that a cleansing or a relief is not possible for these men and thus escape from moral responsibility is impossible. The sound of rain with its beating against the window plus the flicking of the fluorescent lights adds further aural and visual discordance to both jurors and audience. Remember the audience is part of the jury too. Audiences are not only analyze the feelings of the jurors but they can analyse the feelings of the jurors from the weather The setting is the juror’s room- a place where democracy fairness debate and innocence are paramount. A large, drab, bare in need of painting with three windows, in the back wall through which can be seen in NY skyline, Rose might suggest audiences that the room was lack of attention, jurors may care to justice and the pursuit of truth. And the door was locked, the skyline views create a sense of being close in and enhanced the idea of claustrophobia, there is onwhere for the men to go to escape the tension other than the wash room, sometimes the dialogues...
Words: 377 - Pages: 2
...stress as they grapple with each other and with their responsibility (Lumet,1957). The characters of each of the twelve men was carefully crafted into a particular role within the group dynamics. A complete spectrum of issues among the different characters was developed to add chaos to the group decision-making process. From the bigotry of Juror No.10, to the coldly analytical No.4, each character brought good and bad qualities to the jury room; they all had to be addressed to reach an outcome (Lumet,1957). At the beginning of the movie, as the twelve men sit down to begin the deliberation process, there is no discussion and they decide to begin by a vote of guilty or not guilty. Eleven of the jurors quickly vote ‘guilty’ and try to leave the room. Nobody even bothers to think what their decision means for the accused. Juror No. 4 is too rigid to change and Juror No. 7 just wants to get to a ballgame for which he has tickets, each of the eleven justify why they need to just agree and be gone from this process (Lumet,1957). When a group becomes too confident and fails to think realistically about its task, groupthink can occur. Juror No. 8 doesn’t fall prey to the groupthink error and stands against the group (Tubbs, 2012). The Tubbs Model for Small Group Interaction...
Words: 1787 - Pages: 8
...to success or failures.12 Angry Men is a classic movie which was released in 1957.In the movie 12 men are put in one single room to discuss a case and reach a final decision on it. Until they don’t come up with a final decision no one is allowed to leave. Much similar to a typical GD session.Group dynamics is related with the structure and functioning of groups as well as the different types of roles each individual plays. In the film, twelve men are brought together in a room to decide whether a boy is guilty of killing his father. In the whole movie, each member has been crafted very carefully. He has been given a proper role to play in the group dynamics. The whole spectrum of humanity is represented in this movie, from the bigotry of Juror No.10 to the coldly analytical No.4. Whether they brought good or bad qualities to the jury room, they all affected the outcome. In the start, the movie shocks the viewer. There is...
Words: 1746 - Pages: 7
...Men was Juror 8, who was played by Henry Fonda. He is one brave juror who voted 'not guilty' at the start of the deliberations because of his reasonable doubt. His role was firm and persuasive, he forces the other men to slowly reconsider and review the shaky murder case and eyewitness testimony against the endangered defendant. Favourite Scene: My favourite scene was when Juror 4 do not believe the boy’s alibi that he was at the movies while the murder was taking place as the boy could not remember the title of the movie and the actors in it. Then, Juror 8 stated that it was due to the boy being devastated that the father was murdered that caused him to forget. Next, Juror 8 did a test on Juror 4 on the events that happened on previous days and he had difficulty doing so. Juror 8 then said that Juror 4 had no reason to face difficulty as he had not been under stress unlike the boy. Typical scene: The typical scene that got me engaged was the debate and the sharing of thoughts and opinion of the information. The Juror made the audience felt intense when they were arguing over the evidence and them displaying their thoughts is what makes it interesting. Typical character: I felt that the casts were able to portray their own personalities which allowed the audience to have their own judgment based on their characters. In the film, we can see that; Juror 4 who is disrespectful, stubborn and with a bad temper, Juror 9 who is a wise and observant and Juror 11 who...
Words: 670 - Pages: 3
...based in a juror room ready to convict a boy of murder. The film displays conflict and ways to negotiate to turn people or see the other side of the picture. Goes along with real life situations where there are people that hold certain biases and this movie displays them well. One of the biases is confirmation bias, which restricts new information. This Bias is seem early in the beginning of the film. For example when Mr. Fonda introduced the notion of the murder knife not being as rare as the prosecutor showed. One of the juror's rejected the new information because of the boy's background, and the area he lived. The other juror had relationship problems with his son so he rejected any new data that made the convicted boy seem innocent. Both these jurors hold on to their belief even when relevant data emerged to challenge their view, the defense mechanism that arose was anger towards the others. The jurors also display the bias of small data, which they rely on small amount of information to make a decision. Which throughout the film, Mr. Fonda makes each of them realize that there is more to the other side of the story. And makes it relatively available. For example, if one reviews the testimony information, one realizes that its accuracy is significantly lowered. Like the testimony of the woman who herd and saw the boy stab his father, when Fonda reenact the scene there was large holes that could be turned in favor of the boy. Although, Fonda and the some of the jurors came to...
Words: 437 - Pages: 2
...analysis several instances of defiance behaviors, which are displayed in the movie. It also considers strategies groups utilize to extinguish defiance in each instances of defiance. The first scene; all jurors sat around the table exception for the foreman who concerned to keep formal procedure in the group. He mentioned if all jurors get a unanimous verdict, the defendant would charge mandatory death sentence. He started to count the votes “guilty”, while jurors were raising their hands. Juror number 1, 3, 4, 7, 10 and 12 quickly put up their hands but jurors 2, 5, 6, 11 and 9 raised with slightly pause. Juror number 8 was the only person who believed the boy is not guilty and he had not been conceived to put someone into a death sentence:”It's not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first...We're talking about somebody's life here. We cannot decide in five minutes.” Certainly, it would be hard to become alone against the group. The juror number 8 is the first defiant in the movie that tries to convince others for finding reasonable doubt. His behavior might be deviated from the norm but he consciously put himself into a purposeful route. His manner, personality and problem solving skills cause to influence other jurors gradually. He develops as a leadership who focuses on the task fairly as well as group relationship. He constantly employs...
Words: 1304 - Pages: 6
...Juror 3- angry, loud opinionatedJuror 4- opinionated, nervous motion (he tends to pace the room), serious, logicalJuror 5- reasonable, uses his own experiences to make his arguments.Juror 9- would be seen as the mediator, the man who brings harmony to the process. He is older, retired, and he stands up for what he believes in without flinching.Jurors 12 and 7 are the followers of the group. They simply go along with whoever is talking at the moment.Juror 2- calm, shy, quietJuror 10- angry, loud, prejudicedBackgroundThe movie 12 Angry Men begins with a boy who is on trial for murder of his father. The jury, comprising of 12 men is locked in a room to decide the verdict of the case. 11 out of the 12 jurors are convinced that the boy is guilty, however one juror believesthat there is reasonable doubt for the boy to not be guilty. In the rest of the movie, the jury discusses the case and slowly the juror who believes the boy is not guilty, convinces the rest that there is reasonable doubt in the case.Communication barriersJuror 1 – This juror takes the lead and tries to keep the discussion in order. He tries to be fair to all jurors despite thinking the boy to be guilty.Juror 3 – This juror’s argument lies on his own prejudices and life experiences. He comes across as very angry, loud, opinionated and aggressive. He uses definite words like “I know”, “You can’t” etc. He fails to listen to the other jurors and stubbornly stick to his stand.Juror 4 – This juror tries to bring logic...
Words: 440 - Pages: 2
...In Reginald Rose’s play Twelve Angry Men, juror four only allows factual evidence influence his views on the case. The play depicts a case where a jury of twelve men has to decide if a boy is guilty or not guilty of killing his father. They are presented with evidence and testimonies and are set aside in a room to interpret the information. If they vote guilty, he will be executed and if they vote not guilty he will be set free. Although all three modes play part in changing the the fourth juror’s mind, logos is most important because his decision to “let him live” (Rose 72) is guided by concrete evidence and examples, and not emotions or biases. The fourth juror’s ethos helps keep order in the jury room, keeping everyone on track and educated about the facts of the case, and his sense of verity informs his final decision. The fourth juror is a stockbroker, which requires using deep analyzation to make decisions. This aspect of his character is why he is the only juror who bases his decision solely on...
Words: 658 - Pages: 3
...every question and constantly seeks the truth.” This is how Reginald Rose describes Juror Eight. Juror Eight is motivated by honesty and patience. Juror Eight is patient toward the other jurors by hearing them out without being rude and interrupting them, even though he does not agree with them. There are several times that Juror Eight gets interrupted when the other jurors are being rude. He presents his opposing side of the argument in a respectful manner, but also sees all sides of the case and is not quick to jump straight to conclusions. On page 34, Rose writes, ¨Please- he was explaining the circumstances so we can understand why the old man might have lied.” Even though Juror Eight ultimately proved the old man could not have been there to witness the crime, he remained patient while hearing everyone out. This shows how Juror Eight wanted to hear all the information from everyone and let them speak their thoughts on whether the man is guilty or not, before drawing a conclusion....
Words: 468 - Pages: 2
