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.
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.
Juror#2 also was eliminated although he was a very positive character with an open mind, he did not have much confidence. The third juror was definitely out of the picture of becoming the leader because he bullied many of the members of the group, used a lot of offensive and abusive language, and did not take any of the other members’ thoughts into mind, he was very stubborn. Juror #4 was not leader material at all because he thought he was above everyone else and was very driven among facts. Juror #5 was a very interesting character although he did not have the characteristics for a leader, he was much to scared and not confident. Juror #6 seemed a bit on the slow side and very indecisive.
But nobody knows if they really are. Since personal emotions had been involved, not many jurors were able to construct arguments without their prejudice. As for 8th Juror, although he might seem to be sympathetic to the unfair judicial system to the defendant, but he could still present his ideas without personal feelings involved. That was why he appeared to be different than the others. Apart from using 8th Juror to strengthen the importance of being gentle and rational, 3rd and 10th Juror were also used to express the same idea through a different way.
Lessons from 12 Angry Men Marilyn Mireles Group Dynamics ITT Technical Institute The main thing that I have learned from the film, “12 Angry Men”, is that if one man is willing to stand up against all odds and think independently he has a chance to influence the surest man. In all criminal cases that are presented within the courts here in the United States, the presented defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. To reach any significant conclusion, this proves to be the most difficult task. Clearly evident is this task as which was seen in the film of “12 Angry Men”. Different faces of prejudice clouded the minds of 11 of the 12 men on the jury in this film.
Amanda Porter 12 Angry Men GROUPTHINK VS. MINORITY INFLUENCE The jury situation portrayed in 12 Angry men had a lot of symptoms that would normally lead to a groupthink phenomenon. For example, the majority of the group had a belief in the moral correctness of their decision—they were punishing a bad person, they had a stereotyped view of the people who opposed them (bleeding heart, do-gooders). There was extreme pressure to conform, an illusion of unanimity (at least in the beginning), many of the jurors engaged in self-censorship (they didn’t initially voice their opinions) and strong personalities that were trying to push the group in a certain direction. Despite these symptoms, the minority was able to override the majority and sway the vote
He was obviously (due to the evidence) innocent, but racist southerners of the jury ruled him guilty anyways. ii. Due to the support of Tom Robinson, the common person hated the finch family. 1. Both examples show how prejudiced the city in the South actually was.
They must unanimously agree on the innocence or guilt of one boy accused of patricide. In itself, the task is hard, but once prejudice, bias, and pride (all of which form part of the human psyche) are added into the mix, the task becomes infinitely harder. One juror takes it upon himself to peel away the layers of confusion surrounding the trial, while unwittingly peeling back the layers behind each juror and exposing the true motivation beneath. Perhaps one of the most common and instinctive kinds of prejudice is racial/ethnic discrimination. It is understandable from a purely psychological point of view to be wary of “outsiders” (people who don’t look like you), but it is entirely detestable in the eyes of modern society.
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.
For the majority of this reading I found myself getting more and more frustrated with his ability to talk in circles over and over until anyone listening would be much inclined to simply do away with him. He certainly didn’t make anything easy on himself or let anyone be easy on him. It’s almost as if he wanted to make it difficult for people to be on his side. I agree with Socrates because when it all boils down to the facts he was innocent. He made very intelligent arguments contradicting his accusers and stuck to his principles all the way to his sentencing of death.