Number 8 was the only juror who voted not guilty in the first vote causing conflict amongst the other jurors. When questioned about his decision juror 8 simply said ‘It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.’ Had juror 8 voted guilty, a boy may have unfairly been charged with a crime that he may or may not have committed. Through the action of voting not guilty we understand that one of number 8’s values is integrity. In contrast to juror number 8, juror number 3 is a prejudiced bully who is portrayed to us as the ‘night mare juror’. 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’.
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.
Juror #8 also touches on the emotional sense of the other jurors. Lastly he utilizes his impeccable diction in a convincing fashion. Juror #8 brings reason into his case for the boy being not guilty as a persuasive asset. Juror #8 uses a logical approach when he explains the yelling incident could not have been heard by the old man (Rose 35). 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.
The jury was almost unanimous, with the exception of Juror #8 who won’t vote guilty. His leadership skills and tactics are very apparent early on in the film, as he suggests the group not be so quick to move on. Instead of jumping on the band wagon, he voices his opinions and doubts because a man’s life is on the line. He used several different influence tactics while defending the boy on trial. He started with some personal appeals by talking about how the boy was abused by his father and grew up in the slums.
Sarah Dodge Period 5 5/11/09 Twelve Angry Men The boy was not guilty in my opinion. The jury did in fact vote the boy not guilty even though at the beginning of jury session all, but one man voted the boy to be guilty. I believe that there was not enough conclusive evidence to state that the boy was in fact guilty of murdering his father. One of two eye witness on the case was proven or seen to not be wearing her eye glasses in attempts to look younger, yet this meant that the lady needed eye glasses and that it was not probable for her to have seen the boy murder his father through the windows of the train. I believe that with the evidence against the boy or in the crime scene at all there is room for reasonable doubt in the case
Collectively the 11 jurors question him as to why he voted guilty. Many jurors have personal prejudice and they are not willing to accept that the boy is not guilty. However, the juror who votes not guilty in the beginning uses role-play as well as assumptions that could be made to convince the rest. One of the jurors uses facts like the lady witnessed the boy killing the father. However, later the old man convinces him with his important
The 1957 drama 12 Angry Men start when the jurors adjourned to make their final decision about a murder case. An eighteen-year-old boy is accused of stabbing his father to death. The conflict is between one juror who isn’t convinced the boy is guilty and the other eleven jurors who initially voted guilty. This movie is full of great examples of conformity, obedience, compliance, influence and persuasion. By definition, conformity is a change in behavior or belief as a result of real or imagined pressure.
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’.
The vote changed 11 not guilty to 1 guilty. That one standing man was the main juror up for sending the boy to the chair. The man had a bad experience and a kind of hate towards young kids because he once had a boy who walked out on him. However by everyone bringing all the attention towards him the man eventually tried to make a point and stay with his guilty vote, but soon enough he broke down and cried. As he cried, he yelled out not guilty.
The play Twelve Angry Men was about a jury system trying to debate about a tough topic, that could’ve affected a boy’s life forever. Some of the jurors were very fair, and others just wanted to get out of the court room fast. Juror four represented the best of our American justice system because he was intelligent, fair, and concerned with facts. To be intelligent, you must be able to balance logic and intuition. It is the ability to apply knowledge, have creativity, and to able to comprehend general ideas.