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.
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”. Most jurors were death qualified and wanted to send the boy to execution. Nevertheless bias and prejudice could be occurred due to the background and characteristics of the defendant as he was coming from a lower class family as well as living in a poor area. (Myers,2010) This was evident by juror #10 who made his decision based on where the defendant lived. The beginning of the movie demonstrated the effect of the normative influence of the jurors when they were voting publicly, which the majority of them voted “guilty”, it could be due to the reason of group pressure and wanted to be liked by others if their decisions were uniformed even thought they might privately disagreed.
The Case of the Spelunkers: Murder in a "Cave Cathedral" Murder is the most heinous of human acts, and unless it is committed in true self defense can never be justified. During a weekend spelunking trip, four close male friends become perilously trapped within a "Cave Cathedral" with little food and limited water. After just a week passes with no rescue one of the men suggests the macabre idea of drawing straws to determine who will be "sacrificed" for food so that the remaining three men can improve their chances for rescue. A critical wrinkle occurs when one of the men, Paul, chooses to remove himself from the process and tells the others to leave him out of it. Unfortunately, the other three keep a straw in the game for Paul which ends up being the fateful short straw and Paul is murdered and eaten in spite of his protest.
His three sons plotted to break him and his cellmate, Randy Greenawalt, out of prison. On July 30, 1978, the sons entered the prison for a visit, taking advantage of a policy that allowed an informal picnic setting for weekend family visits, carrying an ice chest packed with revolvers and sawed-off shotguns. [1] One of them aimed a sawed-off shotgun at a lobby guard. Greenawalt helped in the escape by cutting off telephones and alarm systems. [2] They escaped in Donald Tison's 1969 Lincoln Continental, but the next day, one of the Lincoln's tires blew out on a stretch of road not far from the California border, near Quartzsite.
The film “Twelve Angry Men” is a very interesting and captivating one. This film features twelve jurors who are middle-aged men. A young boy is on trial for the murder of his father and these jurors are faced with the responsibility of deciding whether or not he is guilty. However, the room that they deliberate in is very uncomfortable and hot. As they deliberate they are weighing the facts to ensure that they come up with a unanimous decision.
Matt Alley Personal Law 11/4/08 Hour 7 12 Angry Men The Juror that thought the boy was not guilty was Juror #8 or indentified as David at the end of the film. I thought this juror was the best one of the group. I belief he was the best because he kept and open mind the whole time. He listened to what others had to say, and he didn’t let his emotions take over and was on time for the case. The only mistake I noticed that Juror #8 made was when he went an investigated the case on his own.
Sarah Dodge Period 5 5/11/09 Twelve Angry Men The boy was not guilty in my opinion. The jury did in fact vote the boy not guilty even though at the beginning of jury session all, but one man voted the boy to be guilty. I believe that there was not enough conclusive evidence to state that the boy was in fact guilty of murdering his father. One of two eye witness on the case was proven or seen to not be wearing her eye glasses in attempts to look younger, yet this meant that the lady needed eye glasses and that it was not probable for her to have seen the boy murder his father through the windows of the train. I believe that with the evidence against the boy or in the crime scene at all there is room for reasonable doubt in the case
He has witnessed knife fights, an experience that will later help other jurors change their opinions about the guilt of the accused. Juror #6 is a housepainter, a man who is used to working with his hands rather than analyzing with his brain. He is more of a listener than a talker. He does, however, stand up to the bully, Juror #3 when he speaks rudely to Juror #9, an old man, threatening to hit Juror #3 if he ever speaks to the old man like that again. Juror #7 is a slick, obnoxious salesman whose only concern is to get the deliberations over quickly so he can get to that evening’s baseball game.
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.
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.