The accused is a young 19 year old boy, and the victim is the young boy’s father. When the jurors enter the Jury Room, they all think this case is open and shut – until they take the initial vote, and discover one man voted in favor of not-guilty. All the other jurors seem to think that all the evidence is laid out for them, while Juror Eight is not so sure. Juror Eight reviews all the evidence and is able to find many ways in which reasonable doubt was established. Specifically, in the testimony of the old woman, through the weapon that was used to murder the father, and finally through the testimony of the old man.
Juror #1 is the Foreman of the jury. He is serious about his role and tries to run the proceedings in an orderly fashion, reminding the jurors “Just let’s remember we’ve got a first degree murder charge here. If we vote guilty, we send the accused to the electric chair.” Juror #2 is timid, quiet and unsure of himself, finding it hard to maintain an independent opinion until he finds the courage to point out an important question about how the murder was actually committed. Juror #3 is the antagonist. He is a forceful, intolerant bully who sees the case as simple and believes the accused is absolutely guilty.
“It was his plan to die,” says Kinkel’s sister, “He was going to wait for the police to shoot him on scene” (Mobley, 2004). Kinkel waived the insanity plea and was convicted of four counts of murder and 26 counts of attempted murder; he was sentenced to 111 years and eight months in incarceration. The police searched his house and discovered a collection of weapons and books about making bombs. Kip was found to be fascinated
Morris begins the film with a juxtaposition of introductory statements from both parties who were involved in the murder of officer Woods. In order to convince the audience that Adams is an innocent man and the distrust of Harris. The audience first sees and hears Adams, which immediately set the rest of the tone for the documentary. Adams begins talking about his first couple of days in Dallas, and how him an his brother were trying to get to California, “I’m not in town for half a day and I got the job.” The viewers acknowledge that Adams is a hard-working man, who has a bright future ahead of him. Which makes them think twice that a hard-working man is not capable of murder.
Admission Ticket 4 Twelve Angry Men From the movie, it was seen that the power of the testimonies given by the eyewitnesses was huge to the juries and it was suggested that a ‘vivid eyewitness account is difficult to erase from juror’s minds ( Leippe,1985) and hence more likely to result in a conviction (Visher,1987). Therefore the jurors should take the misinformation effect into account. For example, a witness heard the boy shouted “I’m going to kill ya” few hours before the father was killed, may lead the witness assumed the boy was the murderer. And also the woman who claimed to see the murder while juror #8 tried to query her reliability of not wearing any visual aids at that time. Although juror #8 was the only one who voted “not guilty” in the open ballot of the earlier scene, he was as Myers (2010) explained that a minority was most persuasive when their arguments were “consistent, persistent and self-confident”.
In the film 12 Angry Men there was only one juror who initially showed critical thinking in his evaluation of the trial. This juror was Juror Number 8. In my opinion, when the story first opened Juror 8 chose ‘not guilty’ because he was unconvinced that the defendant was guilty. However he was also unsure that the defendant was ‘not guilty.’ Because of his uncertainty, Juror 8 had to really on critical thinking skills to get answers and solidify his decision. The film presents the story so that Juror 8 would have to persuade the rest of the jurors to choose not guilty.
Probably” was an experiment that actually lead to people electrocuting a poor innocent man. In the late seventy’s Stanley Milgram decided to do an experiment which would tell the difference in whom was more obedient Americans or Germans. This experiment was held in Yale University. There were two players the old man around his fifties and an outside person. The outsider would strap the old man down to an electric chair and if he got any questions wrong he would electrocute him.
Collectively the 11 jurors question him as to why he voted guilty. Many jurors have personal prejudice and they are not willing to accept that the boy is not guilty. However, the juror who votes not guilty in the beginning uses role-play as well as assumptions that could be made to convince the rest. One of the jurors uses facts like the lady witnessed the boy killing the father. However, later the old man convinces him with his important
12 Angry Men (Deliverable from Wesley & Andrew) Idealized Influence: A transformational leader Chooses to do what is right: • Though it was convenient for all the jury members to conclude their decision in 5 minutes without giving serious thoughts to their decision, but he (our chosen character), insisted on exercising due diligence before taken a decision. He protested against the nonchalance of the jury: “we can’t decide in five minutes, we are talking about somebody’s life!” He had nothing personal to gain, but he insisted on doing the right thing. He votes against the other 11, saying that he doesn’t know if the kid is guilty, but feels that he deserves some discussion. • He stood alone for what was right in the face of intense pressure and ridicule of other jury members. The old man who first changed his vote acknowledged this admirable transformational leadership quality when he commented: “it is not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others.
HRMG 6200 / Section 6 August 26, 2012 Week 2 – Interpersonal Behavior Interpersonal Communications: “12 Angry Men” (1957) In the film 12 Angry Men a group of twelve white male jurors are tasked to provide a verdict of guilty or not guilty in a case judging an 18-year-old minority (Puerto Rican) boy of murdering his father. All 12 jurors come from a different walk of life and although all members are Caucasian, the group is extremely diverse. As a result, several personality conflicts emerge and highlight the many differences these twelve strangers have (cultural/value based/assumptions). These individual differences and previously formed biases play a major role in each juror’s opinion, which have an affect on the overall decision-making process and ultimately the final verdict of the jury. This analysis and study of group dynamics will concentrate on the importance of interpersonal as well as intergroup communication.