Twelve Angry Men is a film that chronicles the deliberation process of a jury in the decision of a murder case. The jury, while comprised of twelve men, depicts men from all walks of life—from a seemingly affluent architect to a man who has lived in slums all his life. As such, the issue of diversity seems to be the driving source behind the conflict of the film. In the beginning of the film, Mr. Davis (Henry Fonda, Juror #8) finds himself the sole juror who believes the accused is possibly wrongly accused of the crime. All other eleven men are certain that the boy is guilty.
A12 Angry Men Essay 12 Angry Men, is a courtroom drama about one juror who slowly succeeds in persuading the remaining eleven jurors that the case presented in the courtroom, was not as clear as they originally perceive. Based on the novel, 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, the movie gives an excellent example of Carnegie’s prescriptive methods of persuasion; pathos (emotion), logos (logic) and ethos (ethics), or rhetoric, at work. The movie also provides an example of how a person’s personality, social and emotional IQ, world view, basic need and own expertise in rhetoric play a role in communication and the persuasion of others. Overall, 12 Angry Men, was an interesting movie that brought out the art of persuasion and communication required in a Jury room setting. The first Juror to vote not-guilty in the case, is Juror eight, a self-actualized man with an Engineer-type personality, who suggests the jury first discuss the facts of the case before condemning the accused eighteen year old to death.
12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men Tia Pierce Benedictine University The film 12 Angry Men was not only entertaining but it illustrates many social psychology concepts. The film features a group of twelve jurors who must decide the guilt or innocence of man accused of murdering his own father. Initially eleven of the twelve jurors were set on a guilty vote. Lead by one jurors attempt to convince the others that guilty beyond reasonable doubt had not been proven and that a not guilty verdict might be appropriate and through tense and sometimes heated discussions, gradually, each juror changed their vote to not guilty. The twelve jurors in this film make up a Group.
In fact, it is this dynamic on which the trial-by-jury system relies. At its best, a jury – like any team working together to produce a specified result – will draw on the different personalities, approaches and strengths of each individual team member to achieve a creative abrasion which, in turn, will allow them to produce the “right” (and fair) verdict. When the jury first convenes, eleven of the 12 jurors are convinced of the boy’s guilt (e.g. juror 3 – “this is an open and shut case”): • A minority of the jurors actually seem convinced of the boy’s guilt by virtue of the testimony given in court. • Others are basing their decision on their own deeply rooted prejudices – again others on personal experiences.
Juror 7 saved the whole process himself by being open to new ideas and questioning what he knew. Not only did Juror Number 7 save the argument of Juror Number 6, his attention to detail and his observation skills ended up helping to convince the rest of the men that the defendant may not be guilty. Juror 7 noticed the indents on the face of Juror Number 3, due to his glasses, and along with the rest of the panel pieced together that the woman who observed the murder most likely wore glasses. They concluded that she was probably not wearing them at night due to fact that they are uncomfortable and painful. They made the conclusion based on his facts that the information from the
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”.
Inductive or Deductive Reasoning Name:Inductive Instructor’s Name: Wilson University: john Tyler Date: 4/11/2014 Inductive Reasoning: A Case of Twelve Angry Men Twelve Angry Men is a movie that out rightly uses inductive reasoning to judge whether or not a Puerto Rican boy is guilty or not of killing his father with a switch blade. The judge in this case gave instructions to the jury to treat the case as a pre-meditated murder which deserved a mandatory death sentence. Just like any other lawful cases, the judge emphasized on the fact that the boy is innocent until proven guilty. The aspect of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ forms the basis for argument in the Twelve Angry Men. While in the jury room a vote was conducted to determine what people thought of the boy –guilty or not guilty.
12 Angry Men Response The 1957 film, “12 Angry Men,” directed by Sidney Lumet tells the story of twelve jurors who are chosen to sit in on an eighteen year old boy’s trial. These men must decide whether or not the boy is guilty or not of stabbing his father in the chest and killing him. They have the boy’s life in their hands and need to come up with a verdict of either to send him to the chair or let him free. Throughout the movie they take various votes, the first one had the count of 11-1 with guilty being the dominant choice. Juror 8, played by Henry Fonda, was an architect named Davis and the only one to vote towards not guilty.
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.
He has to deal with the most frightening nature of the justice system facing the death penalty. There is a sense of judgment from the courtroom that because Steve is young and black, he is likely to have committed the crime in the eyes of the jurors because he has been arrested, and he must have done it because the police and the prosecution witnesses wouldn’t lie. In addition to this, Steve becomes very timid while filled with despair knowing that he has been accused of a crime he didn’t commit. He states early in the novel, “Sometimes I feel like I have walked into the middle of a movie. Maybe I can make my own movie.