12 Angry Men
In the film 12 Angry Men, 12 male jurors decided the fate of an 18 year old boy on trial for murdering his abusive father. They boy was said to have been orphaned by his mother at a young age and sent to live in an orphanage until his father got out of prison. When he was sent to live with his father, he had a hard life and a rough childhood. It was known that his father would physically abuse him because one of the jurors pointed out that “ He would get a beating everyday, wouldn’t you kill your father too?” In the beginning all but one juror believed the boy to be guilty. It was up to juror #8 to use his communication skills to get the other jurors to be more open minded and see his side. He never said in the beginning that the boy was guilty. He just wanted reason to believe that he was not guilty.
The personalities of each juror created a great example of identity needs. Each juror had a history that they brought with them into the decision making process of the boys fate. None moreso than that of juror #3. A man who had a hard time dealing with his own son. He was embarassed when his 9 year old son ran away from a fight, so he “Taught him what it was like to be a man.” Years later, he got into a physical altercation with his son and they no longer spoke. After being so stubborn and adament that the boy was guilty, he throws his wallet and out falls a pitcure of him and his son. It was at that moment that he realized that the boy was not guilty and changed his vote.
The practical goal of the jury was to communicate to eachother why the boy was guilty or not guilty. Had everyone voted guilty as they had planned, they could have sent an innocent boy to the electric chair. It was the effective communication of juror #8 who said, "we owe it to him" he felt morally obligated to at least review the case. Even with a witness who said she saw the boy do it, he still wanted to hear what everyone’s opinions were. With everyone’s opinions being...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document