12 Angry Men Topic (Groupthink) that helps an individual understands the movie, 12 Angry Men. “12 Angry Men”, is a movie about 12 jurors who get stuck in a room to debate if a person charged of murder is guilty or not guilty. The case seemed to look like a one sided case, but little did they know one guy would vote differently. The 11 men actually lost to one man, and it caused emotions from the beginning to the end of the movie. This movie was all about non-ethical and lazy like sayings, such as: “lets get it over quick” and “who really cares”.
Davis the name of number 8 juror tried to convince the members of the jury and he succeed to change their minds. Davis was smart and logically man, he started doubt the evidence by the switch knife. The jurors believed the knife belongs to the eighteen years old guy and he stabbed it in his father chest, Davis made his argument by said might the murder used another knife looked like the guy’s knife and he showed the jurors a knife looked like the knife was used to kill the man. After this argument the one of jurors #9 changed his vote to not guilty. After that #5 juror who had a problem to express his opinion, he changed his mind and vote for not guilty.
Sidney Lumet’s first film, 12 Angry Men, is a single-room film about jury-disputing. If 12 jurors fail to find reasonable doubt, an eighteen-year-old boy will sentence to death due to the charge of being the murderer of his father. In the first vote, 11 think the boy is guilty; the one left simply thinks it is too soon to make this decision. The other men get choleric and present the evidence to persuade him. The speech not only shows their thoughts but their attitudes and prejudices.
While in the jury room a vote was conducted to determine what people thought of the boy –guilty or not guilty. It turned out that out of twelve people only one (the architect) thought the boy was not guilty. Inductive reasoning seems to have been the basis of their decisions as many evidences rose. One of the evidence presented is where an old man living down stairs claimed to have heard the boy shouting ‘I will kill you.’ it was also after these words that he heard a thud which forced him to rush to the stairway. The man also insists that he saw the boy running downstairs after the commotion.
Juror 8, played by Henry Fonda, was an architect named Davis and the only one to vote towards not guilty. When questioned as to if he really believes that the boy is innocent he simply responded “I don’t know.” Davis felt that if they have the boy’s life in their hands then the least they could do is talk about it for an hour. Davis’s claim was that he had reasonable doubt about whether or not the boy actually killed his father. There were many little things that they overlooked in the cross-examination and Davis said “if I were him I would have asked for a new lawyer.” By voting not guilty, and presenting his reasoning, Davis was able to get the jury to take a look at the evidence once again with a fine-toothed comb. In order to provide a valid argument, Davis needed to show the jury the grounds under which he believed the evidence presented was not credible enough to send him to the chair.
12 Angry Men persuaded by rhetoric In the movie 12 angry men rhetoric is found throughout the movies as the jurors argue amongst one another as to whether or not a teenage boy is guilty of stabbing his father. As they dig deeper into the case and examine evidence closer the jurors use all three forms of rhetoric, ethos, pathos, and logo’s in order to decide the boys fait. When the jurors first take a preliminary vote it is found that juror number 8 is the only one who votes not guilty. When questioned by the other 11, he reveals to them that he couldn’t possibly vote guilty without first discussing the case, because the guilty verdict would mean the death of teenage boy. This is a great example of the use of the rhetoric, ethos’s because he is basing his decision of not guilty, off of principles and morals rather than evidence shown, and wants to first discuss and way all the evidence of the case, rather than just making a quick decision because it seems that the logical answer would be guilty.
The film “12 Angry Men” (1957) is based on the story of twelve jurors who are responsible for deliberating and deciding the fate of a teenage boy accused of murdering his father. Although to most it seems like an open and shut case where the boy is definitely guilty, one juror speaks out against the popular groupthink of the other eleven jurors and admits that although he does not know if the boy is guilty, he is not convinced that he is. Throughout the film this one juror, played by Henry Fonda, speaks his mind in a very non-confrontational way, and begins to sway the jury vote by vote. By the end of the film the jury has reached a consensus of “not guilty”. Power is described in our text as “the ability to influence, command, or apply force; a measure of a person’s potential to get other to do what he or she wants them to do, as well as to avoid being forced by others to do what he or she does not want to do”.
The movie “Twelve Angry Men” is about twelve male jurors, brought together in a deliberation room to decide whether a boy is guilty of killing his father. The deliberation starts with an 11-1 vote for guilty. As the movie progresses, the one man who had a reasonable doubt about the guilt or innocent of the young boy, convinces the other members of the jury to question the facts presented. This paper examines the application of leadership concepts in the characters of each juror. Throughout the movie several leaders evolved, the main one being Juror #8, the man who stood alone from the get go with a not-guilty verdict.
Juror #2 was a very frantic and nervous type of guy. In the beginning he voted the boy guilty, but by the end of the film his reasonable doubt had him opposed to that previous notion. Juror #3 was the assumed “antagonist” which fits his character very well. He was all for the young boy’s execution the whole time until he glanced at a picture that held some type of symbolism to him when he finally broke down and voted innocent. Juror #4 the Wall Street guy was very analytical about his vote.
To me it is unethical to betray myself and treat myself worse than the way I should. This actually simplifies a huge part of struggling inside my heart. In this principle I assume all normal human beings would not do anything to harm the others. Well, of course, I would not neglect the consequences. As usual, outcomes are always extremely important.