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.
The power struggles between characters provide the play with its dramatic tension. Discuss In the realistic legal drama ‘Twelve Angry Men’, Reginald Rose illustrates how the conflicts that arise from achieving dominance in the deliberation, create pressure and excitement for the audience. By constructing twelve contrasting, unnamed jurors, representing ordinary Americans, in the 1950s, McCarthy era, Rose demonstrates how individual differences, including personalities, social backgrounds, irrational fear of ‘others’ and knowledge of their civic duty and the legal system can threaten justice in a democracy. The play is divided in symmetrical Acts because each ends in a confrontation involving the antagonist and protagonist. The best and worst
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.
‘Twelve Angry Men’ authored by Reginald Rose demonstrates through harsh times of New York, the fragility of the judicial system. Reginald rose exhibits that many jurors were somewhat blinded at the start of the play to the truth, but through courage and conviction and the triumph of the judicial system as displayed through juror 8, they are able of overcoming personal vendettas and fears and obscure the truth. However jurors 10, 3, and 8 are used to contrast this. It is evident that through prejudice and stereotypical opinions, prevent jurors from determining the difference between what is morally right or legally right, and can somewhat cloud jurors inability of declaring the truth. Unmistakable through juror 10’s hostile and aggressive tone displayed, he is led to believe that not only is the boy from a ‘low social economic’ background but “…he’s type…they are- wild animals… they’re going to breed us out of existence.” His prejudice opinions constantly blind him from declaring ‘reasonable doubt’ despite current mishaps presented in the evidence.
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’. This proves to us that unlike juror 8, juror number 3 does not hold the integrity value. This is one of the many reasons that juror 8 and juror 3 conflict. Juror 8 and juror 3 conflict throughout the entire play because of these obvious differences in personalities and beliefs. One important conflict between them was when juror 3 says “Well I told you, I think the kids guilty, what else do you want?” and juror 8 replies with “Your arguments, we’re not convinced, we’re waiting to hear them again, we have time.”
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.
Another cause of process loss seen in the movie was the failure to share relevant information. For the opening stage of deliberations Mr. Davis says nothing of the doubts and theories he has on why the boy is innocent; the other jurors share the information that leads them to believe he is guilty and all come to the conclusion that he should be convicted. A very important aspect of group interactions closely related to process loss is groupthink. It is actually a cause of process loss where the cohesiveness of the group becomes more important to its members than actually considering the facts. This is incredibly applicable to the characters in the film because the very conditions that lead to groupthink are those that characterize a jury; the group must be cohesive,
Whether the defendant is white, black, red, or green, the color of the defendant’s skin should not be a factor when deciding a case. It goes against our criminal justice system, and it is completely unfair. With that said, questioning whether or not jury nullifications should be used anymore has become a controversial topic. There are equal numbers of both critics and supports for jury nullifications. Although, whenever there is racial-based jury nullifications configured by a jury, eye brows start to raise by both sides, and people start to question the integrity of the jury system.
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 race-based jury nullification Race-based nullification is not promoted as a positive thing all the time but evening out races throughout a jury may influence the verdict. Racial nullification prohibits the law to protect the plaintiff, if the weight is on evidence (Tomlinson, 2010). Jury nullification is the refusal of jurors to convict a defendant despite his or her belief in the defendant’s guilt and believe the law is unjust the jury, is said to judge the law though more accurately, the jury is judging the law’s specific applications and not the general validity. An example of a race-based jury is White jurors acquit White defendant despite the evidence of guilt. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination based on race or ethnicity while selecting jury members and among this clause the Constitutional right to a fair trial stands strong (Cornell University Law School, 2010).