5. Juror #8 displayed this leadership style because from the beginning to the end of the trial, everyone was more than capable to make a decision based the facts that were given during the trial.…
In the movie twelve angry man, after the twelve jurors listened to the facts in the trail, the judge gives her instructions to them. The judge told them that the man could face the death penalty if he found guilty. The 12 man gather in a stifling hot room to have a concluding about the case. They start arguing and adding their own experience, culture, and understanding of people's motives as a way of reconsidering the facts. Although all the jurors had listened to the same stated facts and they were in the same situation, each one of them interprets the facts differently. This reflects the differences in people and the different ways that we view the same things.…
In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror 4 undergoes a series of questions regarding his confidence that a young man is guilty of murder. From the beginning to the end of the play, Juror 4 gradually changes his mind about his initial vote, through the constructive discussions lead by Juror 8. Juror 4 moves from a belief that all legal witnesses are faultless to truly experiencing some sort of “reasonable doubt.” He is left with a clearer picture of the case, looking beyond his personal prejudices and biases.…
The movie 12 Angry Men depicts a typical scene today: twelve jury members meeting to discuss a case presented to them and determine guilt or innocence of a young man accused of killing his own father. Usually the jury room is a place for discussion and debate, but the evidence has swayed all but one of the jurors into voting guilty. The group in the movie is a jury of 12 men with various backgrounds and age groups. They were placed in a deliberation room where the entire move took place.…
In the drama Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, there are twelve jurors to discuss and deliberate if the murder in the first degree is guilt or not. Because the verdict must be unanimous, twelve jurors have a critical thinking in their discussion and finally made the vote from eleven jurors vote for guilty to unanimous vote for not guilty. During the development of the voting, Juror Three is hardly to persuade because he has a serious prejudice to the murder. If Juror Three does not admit the murder is not guilty, they cannot settle a lawsuit. Therefore, Juror Three’s prejudice should be the key to get the final verdict.…
Throughout the years of America, we had many juries during criminal trials to decide if the defendant guilty or not guilty. In the 1957 movie, 12 Angry Men shows the best representation of American jury system and how people change their minds. 12 Angry Men shows that personal feeling get in the way in their votes. The movie is about how 12 jurors decide the fate of young boy that persumed he killed his father, while during the initial vote only Juror 8 raised his hand not guilty. Then throughout the movie and script each of the 11 jurors for various reason change their votes to not guilty. The 12 jurors change their votes from guilty to not guilty through character flaws, positive personality traits, expertise on the evidence, and pattern of behavior.…
Reginald Rose’s play, Twelve Angry Men, is about a jury’s decision making process in a murder trial. The facts in this play become blinded by the prejudices that some Juror’s possess. A prejudice jury became formed due to a biased testimony and the facts became clouded as generalisations were formed by the Juror’s. Some Juror’s bigotry can be based on their past experiences and discrimination didn’t only happen to the defendant, but it was also experienced by Juror’s themselves…
The movie "12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury's decision on a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin decisions on the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused of stabbing his father to death, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis' bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. As the movie unfolds, the story quickly becomes a study of the jurors' complex personalities and how they deal with argumentation within groups and critical thinking. This allows Mr. Davis to try and convince the other jury members that the defendant might not be guilty by using cooperative argumentation, claim, evidence, warrant, facts, etc.…
As juror 8's campaign continues, and the seed of doubt planted into the "guilty" minded jury members is fertilised thorough the analysing of facts the reasonable doubt slowly grows in the jurors minds, the audience begin to create an understanding that doubt is an easier state of mind…
With a wide cast of characters, it is truly courtroom television. Almost the entire movie is filmed entirely in the jury's deliberation room. At the beginning of 12 Angry Men(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/), the characters have just heard the testimony and evidence against a man accused of murder. The case initially seems to be obviously against the defendant, and 11 out of 12 jurors agree that he is guilty. One juror remains who is not entirely convinced that the man is guilty of murder. Over the course of the film, this individual gradually swings more and more of the jury to his side of the argument.…
12 Angry Men depicts how a jury of twelve men must examine the evidence presented at the trial of a young boy accused of murdering his father. The evidence brought forth in the trial is the testimony of an old man who lives in the apartment about the boy’s, a switchblade knife, the boy’s sketchy alibi, and the eyewitness testimony of a woman who lives across from the boy’s apartment building. With the evidence making the boy appear guilty, a single juror questions the accuracy of the evidence and tries to implant reasonable doubt within the other jurors.…
Imagine having to decide a young boy’s fate who is accused of murder in the first degree. This is the case in “Twelve Angry Men”, the prize-winning drama written by Reginald Rose. Some jurors address relevant topics, while others permit their personal “judgments” from thoroughly looking at the case. After hours of deliberation, the jurors reached the decision that the boy is not guilty, due to the fact of reasonable doubt. While few jurors are motivated by their respect and determination for the justice system, Juror 10 is motivated by his personal prejudice.…
In the movie 12 Angry Men, you will find the power of influence and the effect it can have over a majority audience. Juror #8 who plays the protagonist role, is the only juror that votes not guilty in the initial round of deliberations. Fonda who plays juror #8 is faced with many challenges in trying to convince a room of jurors who feel strongly that the boy is guilty. The setting itself was not the best one, the room was hot, there was no air conditioning, and it was the hottest day of the year. Uncomfortable conditions, and several jurors who hold strong biases from past experiences made it a difficult task for a calm, fair, and rationalized discussion. Fonda who held the only vote for not guilty, remained calm, he did not waver, and held his conviction while the entire room attempted to convince him of their guilty verdict.…
When discussing a single dissenting juror, an iconic film Twelve Angry Men, is a well-known portrayal of analyzing the decision-making process in groups. This film showed that persuasion in groups can take place in various methods (Proctor, 1991). Though this film shows how the minority can influence the majority, the effects of conformity were still the similar. Ultimately, a vote of 11-1 to punish the boy on trial for murdering his dad, changed to a unanimous 12 man vote to pardon him. While this dissenting juror maintained independence and ultimately influenced the majority, this is not typically the…
In analyzing 12 Angry Men the first theory that came to mind is the Universal Theory of Leadership. The theory is defined as the belief that certain personal characteristics and skills contribute to leadership effectiveness in many situations. This shows true with Juror #8. Juror #8 was the architect who emerged as a real effective leader. The architect showed self-confidence and assertiveness. He convinced the jury that once all thought the young man was guilty to believing he was innocent due to the lack of proof and questionable assumptions. He showed himself as respectable, knowledgeable, and authentic. The architect rose question as to whether or not the circumstances could be possible by re-enacting the situation. He challenged the process completely by doing this. He was also a leader of integrity because he was loyal to rational principles, practiced what he preached, and did this regardless of the social pressure from fellow jurors’. With these characteristic traits the architect proves to be an charismatic and effective leader.…