Conformity In 12 Angry Men
The film 12 Angry Men opens in a courthouse where closing arguments have just concluded in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year old boy accused of stabbing his father to death. The judge gives the jury instructions regarding their duties as jurors. The judge stresses the seriousness of the crime, what is at stake, and if they have a reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s guilt, they must bring him a verdict of not guilty. If, conversely, they have no reasonable doubt, then they must find the accused guilty. No matter what they ultimately decide, their decision must be unanimous. The judge finishes by reminding them that if the verdict is guilty, the death sentence is mandatory. The jurors then retire to a private room to begin their …show more content…
It is a public vote where each juror must raise their hand to indicate if they are voting guilty or not guilty. By making it a public vote, everyone in the room will know how everyone else voted, which places pressure on the group to comply. The foreman asks for those who are voting guilty to please raise their hands. Without hesitations, the foreman and five other jurors quickly raise their hands. Five more jurors, who will later voice their doubts about the boy’s guilt, look around to see how their fellow jurors are voting. After briefly hesitating, they raise their hands to vote guilty. Later, in the film, after performing a secret ballot, one of the jurors switches his vote to not guilty, which would suggest that in a public situation individuals feel more pressure to comply with the group, then when they can express their views anonymously. In addition, the first vote is also an example of compliance and acceptance. The jurors who were slow to vote guilty may have hesitated because they have their own personal doubts about the boy’s guilt, but feel the pressure from the group to vote guilty after seeing half the jury vote guilty. Instead of going against the group they make the decision to comply and vote with the majority. Jurors number three and number ten quickly vote guilty because they inwardly believe as many people in our society do that kids like the accused are no good. By voting guilty they are acting on this
12 Angry Men Assessment: 12 Angry Men
755 Words | 4 PagesThough 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.
Twelve Angry Men: Comparing The Book And Film
726 Words | 3 PagesThe fourth juror had brought out the actual knife, jammed it into the
Peer Pressure In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men
1247 Words | 5 PagesWhile all of the other men have changed their vote to a not guilty verdict, the third jurors remains with his original belief. Even in the very end of the play, he acts hostile against the others trying to change his mind, in saying “Do you think I’m an idiot or something?” (Rose 72). One juror that seems almost impervious to argumentative fallacies and peer pressure is Juror 8. Juror almost displays the ideal juror, and the rest tend to mimic the flaws of the system.
Ethos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men
1964 Words | 8 PagesWhat is worth our attention in this movie is how in the beginning they are trying to convince each other to vote guilty. 11 juror voted guilty and only one voted not guilty. Their judgments were based upon either their past personal experience which created their thoughts and behavior or upon facts. Juror 8 represents the conscience. He stood up for his inner feelings that the accused young boy is innocent.
Examples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men
915 Words | 4 PagesThroughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing.
Fallacies In 12 Angry Men
1404 Words | 6 PagesThe script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar
Standing Up To The Majority In 12 Angry Men
1191 Words | 5 PagesThe play 12 Angry Men is about a jury of twelve men that are given the task of deciding the fate, guilty or not guilty, of a young boy accused of murdering his father. The theme of standing up against the majority is very prevalent in this story because of the decisions some of the jurors make throughout the play. Juror 8 makes the decision to vote not guilty, he is the one and only juror in this play that decides to vote not guilty for the boy in the beginning. The other eleven jurors decide to vote guilty because of the evidence that they have been presented with. The act of Juror 8 standing against the majority of the other jurors about the case, voting not guilty, allows the jurors to thoroughly dissect the case, understanding it fully and thoughtfully before making their decision of guilty or not guilty.
Minority Influence In 12 Angry Men
1458 Words | 6 PagesThis movie is the best example of minority influence where in the earlier stage only one juror no. 8 says defendant is not guilty but in the end of the movie we see that he is able to influence all the jurors in a very logical manner which I am going to point out later so that all the jurors lastly says the defendant is not guilty. Minority influence is more likely to occur if the point of view of the minority is consistent, flexible, and appealing to the majority. The juror no. 8 doesn’t know defendant is guilty or not guilty but he has only doubt in his mind which he trying to clear during the entire film and with which he also able to clear the views of other
Juror Eight And Juror Three In John Steinbeck's 12 Angry Men
502 Words | 3 PagesIn the play 12 Angry Men, a murder case is being reviewed by a jury. This jury must decide if a kid who killed his father is guilty or not. Two jurors that were on opposing sides for most of the play was Juror Eight and Juror Three. The reason they were on opposing sides was because Juror Three believed the kid was guilty, while Juror Eight believed there was not enough evidence to convict him. Most of the jurors wanted to settle on having reasonable doubt, so another jury could be called in.
12 Angry Men Groupthink Analysis
842 Words | 4 PagesJuror 3 was intimidating the other jurors, trying to convince them to stick with the guilty verdict. Juror 2 was guilty of self-censorship agreeing with the rest of the group to influence his decisions. The whole group began with the illusion of unanimity. According to Janis illusion of unanimity is, “the majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.” (Psysr.org,
Examples Of Social Injustice In 12 Angry Men
803 Words | 4 PagesIn 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.
Personal Insight In 12 Angry Men
228 Words | 1 PagesThroughout the play 12 Angry Men, jurors use reasonable doubt; previous knowledge or opinion of a topic, to influence the opinions of other jurors. Personal insight used by Juror eight, juror 9, Juror 5, Juror 8, and Juror 2 influence other jurors by changing their opinions and their reasoning behind that vote. For Instance, Juror eight exhibits how the old man 's testimony is not valid. He demonstrates the old man walking from his bedroom, down the hall, and down the steps, just in time to witness the boy stab his father.
12 Angry Men Murder Scene Analysis
851 Words | 4 PagesWhichever way you decide, the verdict must be unanimous. I urge you to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully. You are faced with a grave responsibility. Thank you, gentlemen” (Judges Voice). The jury enters the jury room and twelve men shuffle in.
The Justice System In Twelve Angry Men
591 Words | 3 PagesThe justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.
Social Psychology In The Movie Twelve Angry Men
721 Words | 3 PagesThis theory is practicable inside of the juror’s decisional processes of the “Twelve Angry Men.” Conformity is described from the beginnings of the film. When the jurors cast their initial vote, doubt is clear in many of the jurors whom vote guilty. This inhibition might be commented as weak belief shaked by the guilty majority’s influence. Additionally, though the movie is not provide any references about the timelines of decision this is a relevant factor presumably affecting the “Twelve Angry Men,” and should be considered as a potential element in creating social
More about Conformity In 12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men Assessment: 12 Angry Men
755 Words | 4 PagesTwelve Angry Men: Comparing The Book And Film
726 Words | 3 PagesPeer Pressure In Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men
1247 Words | 5 PagesEthos, Pathos, Pathos And Logos In 12 Angry Men
1964 Words | 8 PagesExamples Of Prejudice In 12 Angry Men
915 Words | 4 PagesFallacies In 12 Angry Men
1404 Words | 6 PagesStanding Up To The Majority In 12 Angry Men
1191 Words | 5 PagesMinority Influence In 12 Angry Men
1458 Words | 6 PagesJuror Eight And Juror Three In John Steinbeck's 12 Angry Men
502 Words | 3 Pages12 Angry Men Groupthink Analysis
842 Words | 4 PagesExamples Of Social Injustice In 12 Angry Men
803 Words | 4 PagesPersonal Insight In 12 Angry Men
228 Words | 1 Pages12 Angry Men Murder Scene Analysis
851 Words | 4 PagesThe Justice System In Twelve Angry Men
591 Words | 3 PagesSocial Psychology In The Movie Twelve Angry Men
721 Words | 3 Pages