In the movie 12 Angry Men each juror has a different personality. Figure one shows the shape, color, size, and placement of each character chosen. Juror eight is a rounded rectangle and is a bright yellow on the outside and pale yellow on the inside. Juror three is a square and is red on the outside and blue on the inside. Juror seven is a rectangle that is dark green on the outside and a lighter green on the inside.
Progressively, the jurors begin trying to compromise on a point that everybody agree because the decision of the jury has to be unanimous. Eventually, the votes of the eleven jurors are converted by convincing speech and peer pressure. Therefore, they made a not-guilty decision. Twelve Angry Men emphasize social psychology theories in the fields of conformity, eye-witness testimony, schemas and heuristics, attitude change (persuation and social influence) and group process (polarization).
Likewise, Juror eight is also a big voice in the room besides juror three causing him to be the second largest shape. The film is practically made up of main arguments between these two jurors with supporting coming from the other ten in the room, which also explains why they are far apart symbolizing the clashing views. On the other hand juror twelve is quite small as he never had much to say towards the case and only really seemed to be a slight distraction for the other jurors. The arrows (Figure one) on his shape are slightly larger to show the overpowering trait of his indecisiveness, which correlates back to the placement, putting him in between the two jurors representing him being in between both
Though juror 3 has been adamant on the guilt of the young boy it is safe to say that this case meant more to him because the relationship with his son is similar to the relationship between the boy and the father. Since his personal vendetta causes him to forcefully accuse the boy of murder it leaves the jury 11-1 in favor of not guilty. Since carefully reviewing the movie it becomes very prevalent that there has not been enough substantial evidence to convict the boy of murder. Furthermore, with the usage of group think all of the men, accept juror 3 are able to put their pride aside and vote what they truly believe the verdict should be, which is not guilty. Though, one of the more pragmatic points in the film happens after juror 3 becomes infuriated after realizing that all of the men are voting not guilty.
With the more corroboration that Juror #8 gave, the more jurors began to believe that the man might not be guilty but instead innocent. In act III of Twelve Angry Men, eventually, after countless discussions, including the substantial amount of evidence that was given, Juror #8 was able to persuade all but one of the jurors. The juror was eventually persuaded into switching his vote from guilty to innocent. Ultimately, the jurors unanimously voted that the man, which was accused of murdering his father,
(EEO, 2012) Dunlap actually proved that TVA deliberately singled him out because of his race, therefore he succeed in his claim. During the interview, Dunlap stated that his attendance record was excellent with just a few absences due to family emergency (sickness); he then was given a 3.7 while two Caucasian applicants that listed the same reason were giving a score of a 4.2 and 5.5 correspondingly. Another incident was when Dunlap earned four (4) for his immaculate safety record while a white applicant received a six even though his record showed two accidents and overall his record was not as good as Dunlap’s record. In addition Dunlap was able to present evidence of the TVA discrimination against African Americans. Fellow African American applicant William Parchman assisted in this matter and testified that he had been rejected by TVA for years even though he had 30 years of experience, he was hired only after filling a grievance with the EEOC.
“In 16 capital trials, he said, he has had only two clients sentenced to death and none executed - an accomplishment in a field where the goal is to save a defendant’s life”(pg. 6, line 75-79). Due to his huge success, Ruhnke believes in his superstitions and will continue to do so as long as he prospers in his
Through the play, ‘Twelve Angry Men’ established in 1957, the playwright, Reginald Rose signifies the importance of both rational attitude and emotions when making crucial decisions. Gathering on the “hottest day of the year” in a “large, drab, bare” jury room is throbbing for most jurors’ present. They have gathered to reach a ‘fair’ verdict and follow the judge’s instruction to “deliberate honestly and thoughtfully” as prejudice and experiences cloud their judgements. Whilst every juror has a different approach to the case, Rose demonstrates that both emotion and reason are used in the process of decision making. Taking decision without the interference of personal life leads one taking a fair judgement.
This quote ties in with Twelve Angry Men because Roth is saying that a person can wait for something to happen on its own, or they can get up and do something about it. That is what Juror Eight did; he was the first to vote not guilty, and he stood up for the boy because he did not believe that the kid was completely guilty. His actions were what made the jury see why he voted not guilty and he saved the kid’s life by standing alone and showing his