People in groups that have this problem are often afraid of getting into a fight with someone or a debate, so they rely on the easy route and agree with whomever. Groupthink has 8 certain symptoms that can easily relate to many characters in the 12 Angry Men. One symptom
When most casual readers first skimmed over this article, they might be impressive because they browsed Jeff Jacoby’s essay without thinking and with no doubt. The careless readers might also unconsciously agree with his opinions since his argument seems strong and logical. However, if they read the article again and again with second thought carefully, they will find out that his claim is doubtful since Jacoby uses too much pathos, does not give proper statistics, and lack of giving contrary contend. Although Jeff Jacoby shows many disadvantages and flaws of imprisonment to convince readers of his side, he presents some statements based on his emotion without thinking objective. So, I should argue that Jacoby uses too many his own feelings about the dissatisfaction of imprisonment, which makes his claim weak and not credible.
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
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.
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. As a natural thinker, expert in rhetoric, and individual with a high social and emotional IQ, which allows him to relate and understand people well, Juror eight manages to put doubt into the minds of the other juror’s about the accuracy of the evidence provided in the courtroom. For instance, he uses a combination of ethos, logos and pathos when explaining how the court story of the club legged old man, who heard the murder and saw the boy running down the stairs, flawed. In the story the club legged old man tells in court, he heard someone cry-out and a body hit the floor above him before he hurried from his bed to the door at the end of the hall, about sixty-five feet away, in ten seconds and opened the door just in time to see the eighteen year old running down the stairs. In the jury room, Juror eight first used pathos, to appease to the emotion and sympathy of the
Many juries also don’t fully understand the legal system, which can be seen as a good thing because the accused is being judged by his peers, but it could also lead the jury to make an incorrect decision on whether the suspect is guilty or not guilty. Jurors can’t ask the witness any questions either, so they have to make a decision even if they
Juror #8 followed up and done his part to open people’s eyes, with his observations true justice was served in the courtroom on that day. He not only saved the young man’s life but brought about a whole new investigation to find the true culprit. Juror #8 most defiantly is a man of honesty as
All other eleven men are certain that the boy is guilty. However, Davis smartly utilizes some key tools to move his cause forward. Some of the other men are outraged that Davis could even fathom that the boy is innocent and promptly lash out towards him. Davis, instead of retaliating in kind, uses polite and friendly talk to express his concerns. In fact, throughout the entire film, it is probably Davis’s amicable nature as well as cool reasoning that most persuades the jury members.
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.
Gabriel Cardona Communication 101 October 22, 2012 12 Angry Men “If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, a reasonable doubt, then you must bring me a verdict of 'Not Guilty'. If, however, there's no reasonable doubt, then you must, in good conscience, find the accused "Guilty". –Judge. Twelve Angry Men is a black and white film from the 1950’s in which 12 men from different backgrounds and lifestyles must use group communication to decide a young, mislead boys fate. All men are lead into a jury room to cast their individual votes and determine a final verdict to the trial.