12 Angry Men Socia

397 Words2 Pages
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”. 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. Therefore it could be explained by the vote differed when voting secretly and openly. In addition most of the jurors did not have enough arguments to support themselves, eg: when juror #7 was asked his reason behind, he looked at juror #3 and said “you tell them”. The
Open Document