...closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence Other jurors feel annoyed after listening to Juror 8 statements....
Words: 858 - Pages: 4
...numerous functional and dysfunctional properties of the 12-jury men play a big role in analysing and evaluating the main purpose at hand, namely identifying the young man guilty or innocent for the murder of his father. The different roles the 12-jury men play in the deliberation of the capital murder case is prominent. Firstly, a role can be defined as a set of expected behaviour patterns attributed to someone occupying a given position in a social unit. Different groups enforce different role requirements on individuals namely; role expectation, role perception and role conflict. (i) Role expectation: Role expectation can be defined as the role others believe a person should play or the way others believe a person should act in a given situation. When looking at the Jurors’ main role in any court system and in the film, it is expected of them to decide whether or not the defendant should be declared guilty or not guilty. (ii) Role perception: Role perception can be defined as the individual’s view of how he or she should act in a given situation. When looking at the film the Jurors individual frame of position and prejudices influence how they individually perceive the case. Because the Jurors perceptions are unique it leads to complications in the communication process. In the film “12 Angry men” Juror no. 3 decides beforehand that it is an “open and shut case”. He validates his verdict by using emotionally laden language which eventually influences and persuades the other...
Words: 2018 - Pages: 9
...reached easily, all the jurors would presume the defendant guilty of murdering his father, but only one takes an exception and votes as not guilty. It is necessary that all jurors vote unanimously for a verdict to be reached, and when juror #8 votes non-guilty, he forces all jurors to discuss the case. All jurors are against reviewing the case, but in the end sit down to discuss. Each juror is to explain why they believe the person is guilty, trying to convince juror#8 to vote “guilty.” In the end all that juror #8 wishes is that the decision is not reached hastily, as it is a man’s life that they hold in their hands The first influence methods that can be found in the movie is Consultation - asking and otherwise involving others. This method can be observed when juror #1 states: “you fellas can handle this thing any way you want to, I am not making any rules, well we can discuss it first and then vote on it or well vote right now.” Juror #1 takes the initiative of taking leadership of the group, and asks, and involves others in the best way to reach a decision for this case in a fair and organized manner. A second method found in the movie is Ingratiating - Praising before requesting - it can be seen when Juror #4 discusses the facts of why the kid is a murderer using the evidence shown in the court, to which he asks Juror #8: “ Am I right so far?” Juror #3 intervenes without being questioned and responds: “you bet he is.” Juror #3 praises Juror #8 without being requested...
Words: 1161 - Pages: 5
...“Guilty”, echoed throughout every juror, except for one, juror eight, played by Henry Fonda, the true hero of the film “12 Angry Men”. A jury was faced with a murder trial in which an eighteen year old boy killed his father. As the jurors entered the room, they were already beginning to anticipate leaving. In the room, there was no air conditioning to go along the sudden heat wave in the area. Eleven of the twelve jurors had already made up their mind about the trial, eleven of the twelve had decided that the boy was guilty. Juror 8, played by Henry Fonda, was the exception of the twelve. He believed with the boy’s life in their hands, they needed to be certain of their verdict. Juror 8 began his discussion by bringing the weapon into question. The one of a kind attributes the switchblade knife possessed posed as a definitive evidence until...
Words: 733 - Pages: 3
...Movie Paper (12 Angry Men) In the Movie, 12 Angry Men, 12 jurors were tasked with finding a young man guilty or not-guilty of murdering his own father. In order for the men to fulfill their duty as jurors, they had to come to a consensus of whether the young man was guilty or not by working together, as a group, in order to analyze the trials evidence and testimonies, to then come to an agreement on the defendant’s guilt or innocence. As a group that was formed solely for the purpose of achieving a goal of determining someone’s guilt or innocence, the men face many of the challenges that come with having to deal with group communication, such as working with strangers, successfully interacting with them, and having uncooperative members, among other challenges involving the elements of group communication. First of all, the 12 individual members of the group of jurors had to move past the awkwardness that comes with primary tension. In accordance to Tuckman’s Group Development Stages, during the jurors forming stage many of the jurors seemed to feel uncomfortable working with the other members of the jury. Some of the members were evidently uninterested in even working with the group to achieve the group’s goal. For example, Juror 7 and Juror 12 were the most expressive of their lack of interest as Juror 7 just wanted to get a verdict in so that he would be able to go to his much anticipated baseball game, while Juror 12 would started with talking about topics that were off...
Words: 1487 - Pages: 6
...others. There are 8 methods you can use: Foreman –giving options, being likeable, listening to others 1. Coalition building: seeking alignment with others Asking everyone what they thought when he gave everyone the story about the woman. Comparing kids juror #2 and #8 seeking sympathy to show how kids can be ungrateful #8 Involved everyone in discussion and made changes as suggested (speed it up anyone can walk faster than that) One juror looking at the other juror – did or didn’t the old man see the boy moving out the house? He’s looking to the other juror to agree with him. Then he moves on to shouting. Nudging the juror next to him – tell them will ya Shouty guy – what’s the matter with you guys? Can’t you see he’s guilty? 2. Consultation – asking and otherwise involving others Picky little points don’t mean anything. You know how these people lie – I don’t have to tell you stereotyping and putting THEM into a different bracket than ‘normal folk’ trying to make people tink I’ve known a couple that are ok but It’s like an exception. Having the opposite effect of what he wanted. Showing that he is prejudiced. Told to exit the discussion. Jury 8 still able to empathize. He’ able to go ti system again and again to say that they are following legal orders (bigger) Put yourself in kids place Supposing you were on trial Foreman letting everyone decide how to do things. #8 asking everyone...
Words: 1128 - Pages: 5
...Democracy and the right to serve as a juror are a great privilege and responsibility which is not to be taken lightly, as seen in Twelve Angry Men. How does Rose use the play to reflect these themes? In Reginald Rose Twelve Angry Men, Rose uses the play to reflect the duty and responsibility of a juror. Rose uses the characters to reflect different themes of the play. As a democratic country, jurors have a great privilege and responsibility and it shouldn’t be taken lightly as some juror’s demonstrated. Rose represents different personalities and beliefs with each juror. A young man’s life is at stake, most of the juror’s assume he is guilty on the first vote. But luck for the boy is that the 8th juror who wants it to be a fair trial and wants to “talk this thing out”. A fair trial that everyone is entitled to. Juror 8th is in contrast with the other jury members who allow personal bias to make up their verdict and decisions. Rose starts of the play with the judge stating the duty of the jurors, and that they have to come up with a unanimous verdict. The play progresses with the changing of individual juror’s minds. Rose represents juror 8 as the protagonist and the hero of the case. Juror 8 represents the strengths of the jury systems. Juror 8 insists on looking at the facts in the case even though everyone else has already got their mind made up. In the play juror 8 is used to represent a juror who is doing his duty the right way. He is patient , tolerant and thinks about...
Words: 1229 - Pages: 5
...12 Angry Men Separate Paragraphs Juror #3, is a strongly opinionated man who is extremely intolerant of other people's views and opinions, he obstructs the jury system. He is “accustomed to forcing his wishes and views upon others” through the use of strong words and force (1). While talking to juror #12, juror #3 decides to play tic-tac-toe during the trial and says “Your turn. We might as well pass the time” (13). The utter fact that juror #3 had the audacity to play a game during a life or death dependent court trial, is beyond disrespectful. It is more than apparent to the reader the juror #3 does not truly understand the importance of remaining focused and grasping all components of the case in order to make a well-educated decision....
Words: 867 - Pages: 4
...Cast3 Major Case Issues4 Juror #85 Juror #49 Juror #312 References15 Cast 1957 ActorJuror #Character DescriptionOrder of 'not guilty' vote Martin Balsam1/The ForemanThe jury foreman, somewhat preoccupied with his duties; proves to be accommodating to others. An assistant high school football coach9th John Fiedler2A meek and unpretentious bank clerk who is at first domineered by others but finds his voice as the discussion goes on.5th Lee J. Cobb3A businessman and distraught father, opinionated and stubborn with a temper; the antagonist12th E. G. Marshall4A rational stockbroker, unflappable, self-assured, and analytical11th Jack Klugman 5A young man from a violent slum, a Baltimore Orioles fan3rd Edward Binns6A house painter, tough but principled and respectful6th Jack Warden7A salesman, sports fan, superficial and indifferent to the deliberations7th Henry Fonda8An architect, the first dissenter and protagonist. Identified as "Davis" at the end1st Joseph Sweeney9A wise and observant elderly man. Identified as "McCardle" at the end2nd Ed Begley10A garage owner; a pushy and loudmouthed bigot10th George Voskovec11A European watchmaker and naturalized American citizen4th Robert Webber12A wisecracking, indecisive advertising executive8th Major Case Issues There is only one major case issue – whether the boy is guilt or not guilty. The judge states the important...
Words: 3647 - Pages: 15
...they assumed it was an open and closed case. A few of the jurors were very excited because they had baseball games to attend along with other personal events going on in their lives. All were ready to make the vote of a guilty verdict, oh but one. After calming down, stretching legs, and a little small talk, the foreman decided to assign that the setting would be in order from juror numbers 1 thru 12 around the table. They took a vote to see were everyone stood on their decision and there were 11 guilty and 1 not guilty votes. That’s when the other 11 had the opportunity to persuade the 1 to vote guilty, however, it was a difficult job. This one particular juror saw room for reasonable doubt within the testimonies of the witnesses and the remainder of the evidence and wanted to discuss them a little more. The reasons for voting guilty were all over the place. Some of the men had logical reasoning for the decision and others just had not particular reason at all, just because they thought he was guilty. Some assumed he was guilty because a woman who lived across from the defendant testified that she saw him commit the murder. Another was convinced because of the testimony of an elderly man who stated he heard the body hit the floor, ran to the door and saw the defendant run down the stairs. Others were convinced prosecution says that the weapon was one of a kind, none like it. A couple even considered he was guilty due to his circumstances, his upbringing, and the...
Words: 964 - Pages: 4
...12 Angry Men-Influencing Other Group Members This movie was great to see again and to experience all the different dynamics that were occurring amongst the 12 jurors. The time frame in which this movie takes place is not too different than what we experience today in our judicial system. The major differences today would be we do not discriminate based upon age, race or gender. All three of these factors would influence how the jurors would interact with one another and would eventually have a major impact on the final verdict. Juror 8 was so successful in convincing the other 11 jurors for two simple facts. He demonstrated assertiveness and use of reason. While his peers and the foreman fell into a group think mentality from the outset of the movie. Once the 12 jurors are escorted to the deliberation room and checked in the forming of the group commenced. When the bailiff locks the door all the jurors minus number 8 are surprised. The mood of the room turns from relief to despair. Juror 8 does not say a thing nor does he turn away from the window he is looking out of. The foreman at this time tries to call all the jurors to the table and start the deliberation process. The foreman starts out by instructing the group to perform a blind vote on the case. The foreman starts out by trying to have the total buy in from the group and does not create any type of rules or guidelines he wishes to place on the deliberation process. By doing this the foreman is playing...
Words: 1271 - Pages: 6
...we've got to send him to the chair" stated Juror #1, the foreman of the group beforetheir first vote. 12 Angry Men tells the story of a jury made up of twelve men as they discussthe guilt or innocence of a defendant, referred to as the boy, on the basis of reasonabledoubt. The film explores many negotiation techniques, and the difficulties encountered in amulti-party negotiation process where the common goal is to try to reach a unanimousconclusion. The paper will cover the range of bargaining and negotiation styles used among thegroup of men whose personalities add to the intensity of the conflict. This paper will skillfullyfollow the influence weapons and negotiation fouls of each Juror one by one as the negotiationflows from nearly a unanimous guilty verdict to an absolutely unanimous non-guilty verdict. Juror #1Either through volunteering or chronological delegation, juror #1 was the foreman of the groupand tasked with leading the discussion, which quickly turns into a quite interesting negotiation.He was not very assertive, especially when it came to his role of authority, offering to give it upto anyone that would want it. He was however, highly cooperative, making sure the trial wasfair and all the other jurors were heard. Overall he was non-resistant and had anaccommodating negotiation style. His target point was running the trial based on how everyoneelse wanted to run it, which included an initial vote of guilty, and his reservation point wasreaching a verdict...
Words: 6837 - Pages: 28
...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
...father. The jury is further instructed that a guilty verdict will be accompanied by a mandatory death sentence. The jury of 12 retires to the jury room, where they spend a short while getting acquainted before they are called to order. All the jury members except one (Mr K.K.Raina) are convinced that the boy is guilty of the crime and that task before them is to reach a unanimous decision to expedite the case. His is the only "not guilty" in a preliminary vote. His stated reason is that there is too much at stake for him to go along with the verdict without at least talking about it first. His vote annoys several of the others, the most vociferous of whom is Juror number 7 who has tickets for the evening's movie show. The film then revolves around the jury's difficulty in reaching a unanimous verdict, mainly due to several of the jurors' personal prejudices. Juror number 8 says that the evidence presented is circumstantial, and the boy deserves a careful consideration—whereupon he questions the accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses to the murder, the fact that the knife used in the murder is not as unusual as testimony promotes (to prove his point, he produces an identical one from his pocket), and the overall questionable circumstances (the fact that a train was passing by at the time of the crime calls the two witnesses' testimonies into doubt). Having argued several points and gotten no favourable response from other jurors, he reluctantly agrees that all he seems...
Words: 3872 - Pages: 16
...play is about twelve jurors who are to decide the verdict of a 19 year old boy who is accused of killing his father. The jurors go into a room with the foreman to talk about the case and decide on a verdict. The vote has to be unanimous either guilty or not guilty for the case to end. To start the deciding, the jurors decide to take a preliminary vote to see where they stand. After counting the ballots the vote is 11 to 1, guilty. Juror number eight is the one who votes not guilty. The reason that juror eight voted not guilty was because he was not sure that the boy was guilty and he wanted to talk about it. One of the jurors decided to take a minute for each juror to tell their side of the story and what they personally think about the case. After a lot of main points were made such as there being two of the identical knives, the woman in her apartment saying she saw the murder take place through the window of the El train, and how the old man said that he heard the boy say that he was going to kill his father and then went to his door to see the boy run down the stairs. After all of this has taken place they decide to take another vote. The verdict is still 11 to 1 in the favor of guilty. Juror eight is now going over the time periods of when the woman said she saw the murder. Juror eight is also trying to explain how the man could not have seen the boy run down the stairs because the old man would not have had enough time to get out of bed. After juror eight makes all of his...
Words: 2037 - Pages: 9
