Social background, personalities and beliefs influence the way individuals think. The 3rd Juror was a vengeful and aggressive man who is the last juror to change his vote to not guilty. At the end of ACT I, when he yells angrily at the 8th Juror ‘I’ll kill him, I’ll kill him’, the 8th Juror says ‘you don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?’ This conflict contributes to a major turning point because it brings closer to a unanimous ‘just verdict’ as other jurors learnt about flaws from strongly prejudiced people, like the 3rd juror. He contradicts himself by saying ‘Anybody says a thing like that…they mean it’ earlier in ACT 1 because he struggles to detach his personal feelings from the boy as he sees his own estranged son in the 16 years old defendant. Furthermore, the 10th Juror’s angry monologue at the end of ACT II, he demonizes people who are ‘different’.
He believes that the defendant is guilty purely because his own son retaliated against him and punched him in the face, making him believe that all teenagers are just ‘no good delinquents’. This proves to us that unlike juror 8, juror number 3 does not hold the integrity value. This is one of the many reasons that juror 8 and juror 3 conflict. Juror 8 and juror 3 conflict throughout the entire play because of these obvious differences in personalities and beliefs. One important conflict between them was when juror 3 says “Well I told you, I think the kids guilty, what else do you want?” and juror 8 replies with “Your arguments, we’re not convinced, we’re waiting to hear them again, we have time.”
Process loss is any part of group functioning that will inhibit good problem solving. This occurs when a group follows the leadership of one of its lesser informed members, much like the group of men following the leadership of the head juror; although he was not the most qualified member of the group he was in charge of explaining their duties to the others. It could also be argued that the most active jurors for prosecution were less qualified leaders as well. As quickly as one man could say it was an open and shut case all the other jurors had followed his lead and agreed. Another cause of process loss seen in the movie was the failure to share relevant information.
He makes clear that it is illogical for the old man to hear the scream with “the el train roaring past his nose”, proving that the old man could have lied. This is major proof that the boy may not have killed his father, displaying how effective Juror #8 was. Another incident was when Juror #8 exploits the staircase situation. He explains for the jurors the sequence of events using the details described by testimony; He proves that it is physically impossible for the old man to make out a person in that time. He states, “He [Old Man] assumed it was the boy” (Rose 47).
A peculiar switchblade was used in the stabbing and the prosecution argued that it was one of a kind. They have the testimony of the shop keeper who sold it to the young man. In a dramatic moment one juror stabs the knife into the table and proclaims that this is irrefutable proof of the boy’s guilt. The nay-sayer casually pulls out a knife just like it. Proving people wrong in this fashion is not the best strategy for persuading people who are opposed to your point of view.
Juror four was one of the many jurors to watch the presentation Juror eight made about the old man and how long it would take him to get from his bedroom to the hallway. He was convinced the boy wasn’t guilty. Juror four represented the best of our American justice system because he was intelligent, fair, and concerned with facts. Juror four sided with Juror eight, and tried to convince everyone else that the boy was not guilty. In the end, the whole jury decided the boy wasn’t guilty, there wasn’t enough evidence to prove other wise.
Juror #6 seemed a bit on the slow side and very indecisive. Juror #7 was most definitely eliminated because he was very self absorbent; he only interested in getting to a baseball game and followed the majority. Juror #8 demonstrated many characteristics that are stated in the book of how to become a leader. He was very open to other member’s
Fonda is constantly in a conflict between jurors three and ten. Both of these jurors had stereotypes and were close-minded to the possibly of the defendant not being guilty. Juror number three was the hardest to convince, he was very aggressive and argumentative to his case, but was also stereotyping the boy because it reminded him of his son. Jurors, three and ten, had a controlling style of conflict, they use bullying when other members gave input against their opinion. However, members like the old man, juror nine, were more open minded and interested in what Fonda had to say.
Like any psychopath organized, it's him who wants to have the last word and manipulate those around him.” Indeed the principal characteristic of an organized serial killer is to control him self during the crime, to live with a partner (he asked his wife to denounce him so then she could get the reward) and to be able to the dominate the conversation. Whereas a low IQ serial killer is not able to control him self, lives alone, leaves a lot of evidence on the crime scene and doesn’t have any social skills or the strict minimum not enabling him to manipulate people. This information was defined in the early 60’s and was of great help during forensic studies made to determine more precisely the profile of the