12 Angry Men: Henry’s Influence

A number of jurors attempt to influence the decision‐making process. Using the above framework, explain why the architect (Juror 8) is so much more effective than the others. Henry Fonda, who works as an architect is considered to be a consciousness person, a man with values and commitment to the task assigned to him. During the trial Henry Fonda juror number 8, had serious doubts about the defendant’s lawyer and the evidence presented in the case. Henry believed the lawyer did not pressure or weaken the prosecution witnesses. The evidence presented which was the knife used in the murder is not as unusual as testimony promotes, and to prove it, Henry went to the boy’s neighborhood and bought an identical knife for six dollars. Henry entered the jury room with a mind filled with doubts and unanswered questions, at the same time realizing that the defendant’s life “The Boy” is at stake. Jurors usually depend on facts and evidence in their judgment, but in this particular case some jurors derived their judgment in terms of their own personalities, backgrounds, prejudices and emotional tilts. When pride, jealousy and frustration all emerge as seen in the movie, we see irrational and rational decision making. Henry’s influence effectiveness can be summarized in the following points:‐ 1‐ In the preliminary vote, Henry’s realized that some group members were going along with the group by voting guilty, similar to Asch’s Study. He realized some reluctance from juror number 2 “bank Teller”, 5 “man from slums”, 6 “painter”, 11 “watch maker” and 9 “old man”. Henry was the only juror voted as not guilty. His goal was to bring the group back to common sense, interact and brainstorm the case instead of jumping into conclusions. Henry made comments about values, fairness and righteousness. Then reminded the group that the final verdict has to be beyond any reasonable doubt. When the group attempted to convince Henry of the boy’s guilt, by presenting facts