12 Angry Men Dilemma

In: English and Literature

Submitted By tommoerman
Words 596
Pages 3
A View of 12 Angry Men

The movie 12 Angry Men is a snapshot of many of the changes going on in 1950’s- 60’s America. The movie begins by introducing the viewer to a, seemingly, open and shut case about a teenager from the slums murdering his father. It is revealed to us that it is the job of the twelve jurors who have heard the case to deliberate over all the evidence and return a, unanimous verdict to present to the judge. We quickly find out that all of the “evidence,” heard in the courtroom seems to be pointing squarely at the boy being guilty; and most of the jurors are happy to take the evidence at first glance clearly indicating the boy as the murderer. However it is when juror #8 protests: “that the jury should at least review the evidence,” before, for all intents and purposes, the boy is sentenced to the death penalty, when the men begin to be overcome by their prejudice towards the boy and his lifestyle. While the “villains,” such as juror 3 and juror 10,are quite obviously overwhelmed by their own strong feelings of prejudice; for many of the men it is a general prejudice toward the American Justice System which serves to blind them from the truth. They are supremely confident in the system working correctly every time, that they miss obvious mistakes and loose ends going on throughout the trial. With a few exceptions, it is the faith in the American System which contribute the original overwhelming feeling of prejudice in the room, all causing the room to be full with 12 Angry Men.

At this time in American life there was a supreme feeling of confidence and ethnocentrism; coming off World War II the nation is rebuilding, all while some racial and societal walls from the past are being broken down like never before. Rarely before in American history had whites and blacks worked as closely together as they had in World War II.…...

Similar Documents

12 Angry Men

...12 Angry Men The 12 Angry Men movie was a perfect example of the Bruce Tuckman Scheme. Once the Jurors go in for deliberation they immediately start two get into the stages of the scheme. Once they are all in the juror’s room and get settled they start the storming stage. As soon as the juror’s get into the storming stage there is a lot of arguing. By the time they start the norming stage the juror’s are still arguing with one another but they are starting to listen to the people who are trying to show there opinion of reasonable doubt. By the end they all get to go home once they come to a unanimous decision. When the juror’s enter the room at the beginning of the movie they automatically start the forming stage to get each to know each other. When they first get into the jurors room most of them are ready to vote guilty and go home. When juror eight votes not guilty all the other jurors got really mad. At that moment they entered into the forming stage. Juror eight explains to the others why he felt that the defendant was not guilty. They all voted again and anonymously and one juror had changed his mind. After the second vote the other ten jurors got even more upset because they new they were going to be there even longer. The jurors entered into the norming stage as juror eight explained all the reasons why he had voted not guilty. As he explained each of his reasons for not voting the defendant guilty, one by the jurors started to change there opinion about......

Words: 445 - Pages: 2

12 Angry Men

...Summary The play is set in a New York City Court of Law jury room in 1957. The play opens to the empty jury room, and the Judge’s voice is heard, giving a set of final instructions to the jurors. We learn that this is a murder case and that, if found guilty, the mandatory sentence for the accused is the death penalty. After these instructions, the jurors enter. The men file in and decide to take a short break before deliberating. They complain that the room is hot and without air-conditioning; even the fan doesn’t work. All the jurors presume the obvious guilt of the defendant, whom we learn has been accused of killing his father. Eventually, the twelve sit down and a vote is taken. All of the jurors vote “guilty,” except for the 8th Juror, who votes “not guilty,” which, due to the requirement of a unanimous jury, forces them to discuss the case. The jurors react violently against this dissenting vote. Ultimately, they decide to go around the table, explaining why they believe the boy to be guilty, in hopes of convincing 8th Juror. Through this discussion we learn the following facts about the case: an old man living beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard upstairs a fight, the boy shouting, “I’m gonna kill you,” a body hitting the ground, and then he saw the boy running down the stairs. The boy claimed he had been at the movies while his father was murdered, but couldn’t remember the name of the movies or who was in them. A woman living across the......

Words: 2482 - Pages: 10

Consensus and 12 Angry Men

...I recently watched a dramatic “case study” on group behavior and communication: the 1957 movie 12 Angry Men. The movie shows how one individual shaped and ultimately changed the direction of a group decision. The story goes that 12 jurors must reach a verdict that could require the death penalty for an 18-year-old defendant charged with stabbing his father to death. The jurors must reach consensus—the verdict must be unanimous. When they begin their deliberations, 11 vote guilty. Only one sees the case differently and is open to considering that there may be reasonable doubt. He raises his concerns about the trial, the evidence, and the performance of the boy’s lawyer, and continues to ask questions for the others to consider. He also takes the extra effort to provide evidence of his own, for example, purchasing the identical knife used in the murder at a local pawn shop (this knife was purported to be unusual and one of a kind) and pacing the distance the witness claimed he crossed in 15 seconds. It actually took 3 times longer. He wasn’t the strongest voice nor the most passionate believer. He simply had a reasonable doubt and he felt he owed it to the boy on trial to ensure there was sufficient discussion to justify their verdict. He did not bully the others to come to his conclusions, but he stood firm against the bullying of others who would shut down the discussion just to be done with it. Collaborative groups use consensus for decision making. To reach......

Words: 867 - Pages: 4

12 Angry Men

...Corridors of Transition between 12 Angry Men and 12 “I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice”. Abraham Lincoln “The virtue of justice consists in moderation, as regulated by wisdom”. Aristotle ”Nobody gets justice. People only get good luck or bad luck”. Orson Welles Justice = mid-12c., "the exercise of authority in vindication of right by assigning reward or punishment;" also "quality of being fair and just," from Old French justice "justice, legal rights, jurisdiction" (11c.), from Latin iustitia "righteousness, equity," from iustus "upright, just" . The Old French word had widespread senses, including "uprightness, equity, vindication of right, court of justice, judge." The word began to be used in English c.1200 as a title for a judicial officer. Meaning "right order, equity" is late 14c. Justice of the peace first attested early 14c. In the Mercian hymns, Latin iustitia is glossed by Old English rehtwisnisse. To do justice to (someone or something) "render fully and fairly showing due appreciation" is from 1670s. This word, with such a strong connotation, influenced and formed the basis of many......

Words: 5039 - Pages: 21

12 Angry Men

...2B 12 Angry Men Evidence Essay There is a lot to debate about murder cases.there is an especially large amount of evidence to debate in the play “12 Angry Men”. The evidence provided for the trial was easily disproven by the jury members thus proving the defendant innocent. The old man’s testimony proved the defendant innocent. He claimed to have heard the boy yell “I’m going to kill you” and then saw the boy running off seconds later. During this time a train was passing by, and because of the man’s age he needed a cane to walk. This proves he couldn’t of heard the boy yelling and he couldn’t of walked fast enough to see him run off. The old woman’s testimony was more doubtful than untrue. She claimed she had seen the boy murder his father from her bedroom window. The problem is the fact that she needs bifocals to see clearly, and the train was passing between their apartments during the time of the murder. She wouldn’t of been able to see clearly enough to identify the murderer . This rules in favor of the boy’s innocence. The knife wound was also suspicious. The wound was created by a downward stab to the chest. This probably would’ve been insignificant if the defendant didn’t have knife fighting experience. In a knife fight the contenders would of being stabbing upward in hopes of driving the knife in deep. This makes it less possible that he would’ve stabbed downward. All in all, it’s proven that the defendant was......

Words: 292 - Pages: 2

12 Angry Men

...• Study Guides and Literature Essays • Editing Services • College Application Essays • Writing Help • Q & A • Lesson Plans • Top of Form [pic][pic] Bottom of Form [pic] Home : 12 Angry Men : Study Guide : Quotes and Analysis 12 Angry Men Quotes by Reginald Rose [pic]                  [pic] [pic] • Buy PDF • Buy Paperback Quotes and Analysis 1. JUDGE'S VOICE: ...and that concludes the court's explanation of the legal aspects of this case. And now, gentlemen of the jury, I come to my final instruction to you. Murder in the first degree - premeditated homicide - is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. You've listened to the testimony and you've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies to this case. It now becomes your duty to try and separate the facts from the fancy. One man is dead. The life of another is at stake. I urge you to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully. If this is a reasonable doubt - then you must bring me a verdict of "not guilty." If, however, there is no reasonable doubt - then you must, in good conscience, find the accused guilty. However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous. In the event you find the accused guilty, the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy. The death sentence is mandatory in this case. I don't envy your job. You are faced with a grave responsibility. Thank you, gentlemen. 6 This...

Words: 8375 - Pages: 34

12 Angry Men

...Elizabeth Herrera April 23, 2014 Comm 151 12 Angry Men: Communication Analysis In the film, 12 Angry Men, viewers come across a group of men who display the different communication dynamics – both the positive and negative sides. Chapter 7 encompasses the idea of Group and Team Communication Skills and how one should communicate effectively among others. To help better understand, 12 Angry Men is centered on a jury’s deliberation in a murder case. A group of men are given the job to deliberate the life of a young boy who has been accused of murdering his father. With only a knife that’s been left behind in the murder scene and a few witnesses who claim they heard the boy scream and run out of the room; these 12 jurors will have to come up with a reasonable doubt in favor to spare the boys life or cast him guilty. Eleven of the jurors vote guilty while Juror 8 is the only one who votes “not guilty.” As the story starts to unfold, viewers get a glimpse of the juror’s personalities, communication approach, culture, preconceptions, and background and how theses factors influence their deliberation and their treatment towards one another. We can draw from the film that poor Conversational Style was used, the book notes, “Sometimes barriers are not in words but in how they are delivered” (145). These men were not respectful with one another when it came to speaking their turn due to their difference in opinions; which led them to lash out at one another. The book......

Words: 787 - Pages: 4

12 Angry Men

...12 Angry Men depicts the New York murder trial. The premise is the trial of a frightened, teenaged defendant accused of stabbing and killing his father. The judge advises the 12 jurors, that a unanimous decision needs to be made with fair and unbiased manner. If the jury decides unanimously that the boy is guilty he will be sentenced to death. However, if there is a reasonable doubt, the jury needs to reach a ‘not guilty’ decision, and the boy will be freed. A life and death decision needs to be made. The process whereby the difficult decision is reached illustrates a situation where a minority transforms the opinion of a majority by exerting persuasive tactics. The group is challenged by various opinions, intense frustrations, and lack of participation, stubbornness and indifferent attitudes. Throughout their deliberation, they fluctuate between difference, disagreement, controversy and contention. Their prejudices, personalities, cultural differences, weaknesses, priorities, socio economic, ignorance and fears often cause them to avoid the true issues of the case. This makes the jury find it difficult to reach its final verdict. At the beginning, The Judge gave the jurors a speech about their responsibilities in their deliberation. But he was not potent and forceful enough in his deliver, which was kind of boredom. This failed to convey to many of the jurors the importance of their role as a juror. When the deliberation starts, many of the jurors just want to quickly......

Words: 1019 - Pages: 5

12 Angry Men

...The 12 Angry Men Case Dennis Ojwang Organizational Management 701 February 26, 2015 When this movie was made, no one could have depicted that it would greatly speak of the ever changing dynamics of our world today. Immigration and diversity seem to have plagued the world now more than ever and it is no surprise that the business world has been changed tremendously. When this movie came out in 1957, there wasn’t much diversity as we see it today. Upon watching this movie, various topics covered, ranging from power and influence, ethical decision making and diversity, group formation and dynamics, cultural diversity, organizational culture, conflict management and then, there’s an introduction of Fiedler’s leadership model. The setting of the movie offers consistency, investment, rigidity, autonomy and fairness in terms of assessing different levels of conflict and negotiation. I would say that the most evident styles of conflict in the movie are accommodating, compromising and collaborating conflict resolution styles. The jury is involved in a high profile case about a young boy who, if found guilty, then he will be sent to the electric chair. There are several topics that are related to organizational management class that will be portrayed throughout this jury process. The jury, in determining the fate of the young man, who murdered his father, must closely work together and whether consciously or unconsciously, they have been introduced to the forming, storming,......

Words: 1735 - Pages: 7

12 Angry Men

...Jessica Robinson Professor Romano 12 Angry Men When one get subpoenaed for jury duty, they seem to always want a case that is easy to render a verdict and it won’t take all of their time; well people can’t always get what they want. In the film 12 Angry Men, 12 men were chosen to sit on a jury for a murder case. A case that after hearing all of the evidence they assumed it was an open and closed case. A few of the jurors were very excited because they had baseball games to attend along with other personal events going on in their lives. All were ready to make the vote of a guilty verdict, oh but one. After calming down, stretching legs, and a little small talk, the foreman decided to assign that the setting would be in order from juror numbers 1 thru 12 around the table. They took a vote to see were everyone stood on their decision and there were 11 guilty and 1 not guilty votes. That’s when the other 11 had the opportunity to persuade the 1 to vote guilty, however, it was a difficult job. This one particular juror saw room for reasonable doubt within the testimonies of the witnesses and the remainder of the evidence and wanted to discuss them a little more. The reasons for voting guilty were all over the place. Some of the men had logical reasoning for the decision and others just had not particular reason at all, just because they thought he was guilty. Some assumed he was guilty because a woman who lived across from the......

Words: 964 - Pages: 4

12 Angry Men

...12 Angry Men Writing Assignment Final Exam Project Due: ________________________________________ (EDMODO) You will see a lot of psychological phenomena exhibited in the movie 12 Angry Men. Many of these phenomena are listed in the boxes on the next page. Your task for this assignment is to watch the movie, take note of these various psychological phenomena, and then write a cohesive 2-3 page paper discussing these themes. In writing your paper you must pick at least 5 separate incidences from the movie. For each incidence, describe how it relates to psychological phenomenon. Be sure to use concepts from across all of psychology. Do NOT, for example, just pick examples from social psychology (such as conformity and stereotyping); use examples from cognition, memory, sensation, and perception, etc. as well. In order to construct a cohesive essay, you should structure your discussion of the 4 incidences around a central area. That is, your paper needs to be more than just a loose collection of summary points. Consider how you can tie all the incidences together around a central psychological idea. * Behavior is determined by multiple causes: For any complex human behavior, multiple reasons exist as to why that behavior was done. For example, consider your study behavior. It is determined by intelligence, memory and attentional constraints, and social factors. * Behavior is shaped by cultural heritage: At several points in the semester we discussed how the......

Words: 717 - Pages: 3

12 Angry Men Case

...12 Angry Men is a gripping drama that depicts twelve American jurors confined to a jury room on a hot and humid summer day to decide the guilt or innocence of a defendant in a murder trial.1 Before sending out the twelve jurors to deliberate, the judge reminds them that their verdict must be unanimous and that if they hold “reasonable doubt” as to the guilt of the accused then their verdict must be “not guilty.” If, however, they find the defendant guilty then he will be sentenced to death. Eleven of the jurors, believing that the prosecution has presented an “open-and-shut”case,quickly vote for conviction.They believe that the young, poor Puerto Rican defendant, who has a criminal record and lives in the “slums,” killed his father with a switchblade knife. The sole initial dissenter is Juror 8, played in the film by Henry Fonda, who votes“not guilty” as the deliberations begin. As the film proceeds, he deconstructs the pros- ecution’s case, progressing from communicating a sense of vague uneasiness to articulating a precise refutation of the other jurors’ specific arguments. The Negotiation Environment To analyze the negotiation environment in 12 Angry Men, we adopt the methodology outlined by Rojot (1991), who wrote that a negotiation is structured by the relationship between the parties, the resources and con- straints within the environment, and the bargaining power. Rojot identified two significant dimensions for evaluating the......

Words: 963 - Pages: 4

12 Angry Men

...Juror 3- angry, loud opinionatedJuror 4- opinionated, nervous motion (he tends to pace the room), serious, logicalJuror 5- reasonable, uses his own experiences to make his arguments.Juror 9- would be seen as the mediator, the man who brings harmony to the process. He is older, retired, and he stands up for what he believes in without flinching.Jurors 12 and 7 are the followers of the group. They simply go along with whoever is talking at the moment.Juror 2- calm, shy, quietJuror 10- angry, loud, prejudicedBackgroundThe movie 12 Angry Men begins with a boy who is on trial for murder of his father. The jury, comprising of 12 men is locked in a room to decide the verdict of the case. 11 out of the 12 jurors are convinced that the boy is guilty, however one juror believesthat there is reasonable doubt for the boy to not be guilty. In the rest of the movie, the jury discusses the case and slowly the juror who believes the boy is not guilty, convinces the rest that there is reasonable doubt in the case.Communication barriersJuror 1 – This juror takes the lead and tries to keep the discussion in order. He tries to be fair to all jurors despite thinking the boy to be guilty.Juror 3 – This juror’s argument lies on his own prejudices and life experiences. He comes across as very angry, loud, opinionated and aggressive. He uses definite words like “I know”, “You can’t” etc. He fails to listen to the other jurors and stubbornly stick to his stand.Juror 4 – This juror tries to bring logic...

Words: 440 - Pages: 2

12 Angry Men

...12 Angry Men Analysis In the movie “12 Angry Men” there is a young man on trial for murder. The year is 1957, so the jury consists of all white, middle class to upper class, middle aged and up men. Some of their occupations consist of architect, salesman, broker and a man in advertisement. Which if you know anything about a jury today it is completely different. You have many different people of all race, gender, and social class, within that community, to receive a more fair trial. Also you can’t bring in any previous information into the trial or bring any emotional attachment into the case. Having a jury like in the “12 Angry Men” is not having a fair jury or trial what so ever, they are either going to all agree with each other, persuade one another or think like each other. One of the characters played by Henry Fonda goes against the grain, and votes not guilty. This really sends the other jurors up the wall, more particularly the head strong jurors. They want nothing to do with him and don’t want to listen to what he has to say. Henry Fonda speaks out and votes the opposite of all the other jurors. He does so because he wants to discuss the facts and the evidence, he isn’t convinced he is guilty or he is innocent. Fonda wants to do so because he does not want to but a boy to his death without discussing this matter into more depth. This is the boy’s life they have in the palm of their hands after all, and he couldn’t live with the guilt if he would have been peer......

Words: 1022 - Pages: 5

12 Angry Men

...MOVIE: 12 Angry Men As the jurors initiate the first vote, which was done publicly, it was obvious that conformity took place. In the words of Wikipedia, “Conformity is the process by which an individual's attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors are influenced by what is conceived to be what other people might perceive.” As they took this initial vote you can see how each are looking around to see how the next person is voting so that they can vote with the majority, even though they barely put in time to talk the case through – except Henry Fonda (HF). All except HF only has the concern of getting out of deliberation as soon as possible. HF truly would like to discuss the case in details and to look at it from all possible angles. While he may think the boy may have killed his father, he still believes he deserves a fair and thorough trial, especially since a guilty verdict sentences the defendant to death. Unfortunately, the high level of conformity caused the jurors deliberations to go on longer than it may have if everyone initially gave the vote they wanted with some sort of reasoning behind it whether or not it disagreed with the next man. The initial nonchalant vote caused some jurors to attempt to influence others in order to convince them of their case. Many of the jurors wrote off the boy based on stereotypes about growing up in the slums and belonging to a minority group. There were also some who were biased towards the evidence presented and only chose to reflect......

Words: 759 - Pages: 4