"Set in the sweltering summer of 1957, Reginald Rose bases his play “12 Angry Men” on the notion that personal experience has the capacity to influence and sway our decisions. *Rose specifically amplifies this ideology as throughout the play, as a myriad of contrasting backstories are seen to be the foundation of the characters judgments. Set amongst a court case apropos to a 16 year old boy convicted of killing his father, the “reasonable doubt” underlying his conviction is explicitly supported by one Juror 8 amidst 11 others. Demonstrating the diversity of the Jurors, Rose illustrates the “2 America’s” that can be observed in the different Jurors identities. In addition the jurisprudence of America enshrines the belief that “the multitude
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”.
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.
As they deliberate they are weighing the facts to ensure that they come up with a unanimous decision. The film is a very compelling and provocative one as it examines the jurors personal prejudices, perceptual biases, indifferences, ignorance and fears, that was a contributing factor in their decision making process causing them to ignore the real issues in the case, consequently eleven of the jurors voted for conviction. Fortunately, there was one brave juror who voted not guilty at the start of the deliberation because of his reasonable doubt. He was very persistent and persuasive in forcing the other jurors to slowly reconsider and review the case and eyewitness testimonies against the defendant. As a result of this there were heated discussions, the formation of alliances, the frequent re-evaluation and changing of opinions, votes and the revelation of personal experiences, insults and outburst in the juror room.
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.
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. He gambled for support and I gave it to him”. A transformational leader is a role model: • He powerfully modeled having a thoughtful, investigative and inquiring mind to the rest of the jury members by re-examining the key evidences of the prosecutor and the 2 witnesses. Other members of the jury soon followed his example and started raising “reasonable doubts” which led to a unanimous “Not guilty” verdict. • He Frequently reinforces that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and that if there is reasonable doubt, then they should acquit the kid • This character has a very clear idea of what the goal is here.
In ‘Twelve Angry Men’, the playwright Reginald Rose presents a jury of twelve men from contrasting backgrounds that has to decide the fate of a young defendant. Rose wrote the play after being on a jury himself, and therefore wanted the audience to known about the role of the jury and the due process. In this play, the defendant plays a dominant role as without him there would be no case and hence no jury. However Rose deliberately chose not to have the defendant make a physical appearance in the play as this would influence the audience’s opinion and focus their attention on the crime rather than the conflicting jury and their objectivity. Therefore Rose introduced the audience to jurors like 3, 4 and 8 who play a significant role in exposing the Juror’s duty.
8th juror, an architect and father of two, is the only juror to vote 'not guilty' in the first instance. Amongst these twelve anonymous men, he is the first to really gain the audience's attention, willingly and publicly going against the majority of the group by voting 'not guilty' after all the others vote 'guilty' (p.7). In this early action, we can identify many important qualities of his character. He is willing to question the 'facts' with which he has been presented.. He has compassion for the accused.
Savannah Stephens English Honors Juror Seven Twelve angry men is a drama about a sixteen year old boy who allegedly killed his father. When the only people deciding your fate are complete strangers you hope that they take a second look at what the facts are. Juror VII stands out, with barely a background, rude actions, and a confidence that he’s never going to be persuaded. Slicks, self-centered, jerk who is a salesman who wants to be anywhere but in this juror meeting. He talks about how he made a fortune selling marmalade (Pg.).
The jurors cannot base their certainty on concrete evidence as the play indicates that very few facts are absolute because (quote). Instead, they must make up their minds based on the apparent likelihood of various events and on their own personal beliefs. Rose portrays that when it is difficult to maintain certainty about one’s beliefs, in this case the innocence or guilt of the boy, doubt is a reasonable and intelligent state of mind. This is proven by the 4th Juror and the 11th Juror when they say they “ … now have reasonable doubt”. Each of the jurors has a different degree of certainty about the opinions they hold, but cannot be completely sure, as the 9th Juror points out “He doesn’t say the boy is not guilty.