OB 12 Angry Men
A Behavioural analysis of “12 Angry Men” with light on Decision Making by Sai Jayanth Madhu
The movie “Twelve Angry Men” is an examination of the dynamics at play in a jury room in the in The United States. The action revolves around the opinions, perceptions, reason and logic of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary weightage of their decision is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This article will explore some of the elements of Critical thinking found within the context of this remarkable movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgement that can be generally found.
The 8th Juror : Is the first to vote not guilty, he does not call the boy guilty but says that it’s not right to take a verdict in the first 5 mins. They show him to have a different character by him not responding to questions, looking out of the window.
Juror #3 is very biased against the 19-year-old boy that is being tried, and this affects all of his thoughts and actions regarding the case. He has this bias because his own son hit him in the jaw and ran away from home at the age of 15: “I’ve got a kid…when he was fifteen he hit me in the face…I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out [but it’s no use] (21).”According to this quote from the text, this juror condemns all teenagers and feels resentment towards them. He especially feels strongly about the boy being tried, because the boy grew up in the slums, and this juror is also biased against these people who grew up there. It is because of these feelings that he is strongly cemented in his vote of guilty.
Juror #10, a garage owner, segregates
The movie “Twelve Angry Men” is an examination of the dynamics at play in a jury room in the in The United States. The action revolves around the opinions, perceptions, reason and logic of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary weightage of their decision is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This article will explore some of the elements of Critical thinking found within the context of this remarkable movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgement that can be generally found.
The 8th Juror : Is the first to vote not guilty, he does not call the boy guilty but says that it’s not right to take a verdict in the first 5 mins. They show him to have a different character by him not responding to questions, looking out of the window.
Juror #3 is very biased against the 19-year-old boy that is being tried, and this affects all of his thoughts and actions regarding the case. He has this bias because his own son hit him in the jaw and ran away from home at the age of 15: “I’ve got a kid…when he was fifteen he hit me in the face…I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out [but it’s no use] (21).”According to this quote from the text, this juror condemns all teenagers and feels resentment towards them. He especially feels strongly about the boy being tried, because the boy grew up in the slums, and this juror is also biased against these people who grew up there. It is because of these feelings that he is strongly cemented in his vote of guilty.
Juror #10, a garage owner, segregates