Preview

12 Angry Men

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1161 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
12 Angry Men
In 12 Angry Men the movie it can be observed the different methods of influence that a person uses to impact the behaviors of others. This is a case in which a decision was apparent to be reached easily, all the jurors would presume the defendant guilty of murdering his father, but only one takes an exception and votes as not guilty. It is necessary that all jurors vote unanimously for a verdict to be reached, and when juror #8 votes non-guilty, he forces all jurors to discuss the case. All jurors are against reviewing the case, but in the end sit down to discuss. Each juror is to explain why they believe the person is guilty, trying to convince juror#8 to vote “guilty.” In the end all that juror #8 wishes is that the decision is not reached hastily, as it is a man’s life that they hold in their hands
The first influence methods that can be found in the movie is Consultation - asking and otherwise involving others. This method can be observed when juror #1 states: “you fellas can handle this thing any way you want to, I am not making any rules, well we can discuss it first and then vote on it or well vote right now.” Juror #1 takes the initiative of taking leadership of the group, and asks, and involves others in the best way to reach a decision for this case in a fair and organized manner.
A second method found in the movie is Ingratiating - Praising before requesting - it can be seen when Juror #4 discusses the facts of why the kid is a murderer using the evidence shown in the court, to which he asks Juror #8: “ Am I right so far?” Juror #3 intervenes without being questioned and responds: “you bet he is.” Juror #3 praises Juror #8 without being requested.
Thirdly we found Pressure - threatening, intimidating. This method of influence is observed when Juror #3 tries to intimidate Juror #5, raising his voice and states: “Just because a golden voice poured his heart out about an unprivileged kid […] and you change your mind, this is the most sick […]”
Continue Reading
View Writing Issues

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Juror 3 In 12 Angry Men
    • 541 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Juror 3 In 12 Angry Men

    As soon as the jurors move to the deliberation room, Juror 3 begins throwing his influence on the weakest member of the jury, Juror 2. Juror 3 is annoyed that it has taken as long as it has, as to him, the boy is obviously guilty. He is anxious to get the vote out of the way and is shocked when he discovers that there is one juror who sees things differently than he does. He has no sympathy that the defendant is only 19 years old and is annoyed when other jurors want to review the evidence.…

    • 541 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Twelve Angry Men
    • 595 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Twelve Angry Men

    The American jury system, wherein citizens are judged by their peers, is one of the most democratic in the world. Nonetheless our system is far from perfect. There are many dangers in a system in which humans are asked to make decisions that could mean life or death for another person. Bias ranks amongst these dangers for it can affect the way jurors interpret testimonies and facts. Indifference is another factor; it too, can heavily affect a juror’s thinking. Personal feelings and experiences can stand in between a juror and the attainment of truth. The American jury system is intrinsically flawed in that it relies on intrinsically flawed humans to make life or death decisions…

    • 595 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Twelve Angry Men
    • 662 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Twelve Angry Men

    Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting play about an unfortunate young man, who was convicted of killing his dad. The worst part was, the young man was only nineteen, and his life was just starting. The jurors listened to all the evidence, then came the hard part, making the decision: guilty, or innocent. Eleven jurors said guilty and only one said innocent. There was a lot of peer pressure involved. I decided to write about different peer pressures three of the jurors used. The three jurors I picked are juror #10, juror #7, and juror #8.<br><br>The first juror I want to write about is #10. Juror #10 was using a lot of sarcasm, whenever he was trying to prove his point, or prove someone else wrong. I think that this method of peer pressure is one of the most powerful ones. I believes so, because when you are embarrassed in front of 11 other people (in this case jurors) you do not know, really lowers your self-esteem. It may lower it to the point where you will say guilty, eve though deep down inside, you will feel that the person is innocent. This is a quote I picked to illustrate sarcasm skillfully used by #10: "You're a pretty smart fellow, aren't you?" I think this one sentence could really put anyone down, and make anyone feel embarrassed, and maybe stupid. <br><br>Another juror I decided to write about is #7. He was muscle flexing most of the time. Muscle flexing means, he was raising his voice, even screaming at everyone, as if he was the boss. Whenever #8 was trying to present reasonable arguments to the rest of the jurors, #7 would start screaming, even jumping out of his chair, calling seven crazy. Although a lot of evidence was really convincing, he tried to prove it unconvincing and use sarcasm to convince other jurors otherwise. One example of #7 using sarcasm would be this quote: "Why don't we have them run the trial over..." I think this quote clearly shows that juror #7 is trying to convince other jurors, that court's evidence proves the young man is…

    • 662 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    12 Angry Men - 1
    • 838 Words
    • 4 Pages

    12 Angry Men - 1

    Prejudice is seen as one crucial issue in constituting a verdict for the jury, as two of the jurors are biased against the suspect of the murder. Language and characterisation of the jurors is crucial techniques in which Reginald uses to convey the bitterness of one of the jurors, Juror #10. In the play, he states “Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them!” halfway through the play, displaying his racial prejudice towards the suspect of murder; generalising slum people as those who “…you cannot trust”. The use of characterisation and speech, allows the audience to recognise the prejudice in the jury some that is justifiable. Tension is also another dramatic technique used to convey the Juror #3 bias against the boy because of his own relationship with his son who “…didn’t know how to fight”. This technique shows the conflicts between him and Juror #8; every time Juror #8 brings up an argument, Juror #3 always rebuts with biased statements, bringing the tension up. However, this tension is always brought down by some a change in stage direction. Shown in ACT II, Juror #2 “moves to the window” after arguing with Juror #8; allowing the play’s audience to perceive Juror #8 as someone who is not biased against the murder suspect, displaying him as someone who was doing the right thing.…

    • 838 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    12 Angry Men a Review of Dysfunctional Teams
    • 1250 Words
    • 5 Pages

    12 Angry Men a Review of Dysfunctional Teams

    Because Juror #8 has the integrity to ensure that a not-guilty verdict is unanimous, he uses his Influencer personality type to persuade Juror #3. An Influencer personality has the strength to persuade those around him. He forces Juror #3 to examine the reason why is so quickly…

    • 1250 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    12 Angry Men: Henry’s Influence
    • 1406 Words
    • 6 Pages

    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…

    • 1406 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    12 Angry Men: Summary
    • 833 Words
    • 4 Pages

    12 Angry Men: Summary

    The movie “12 Angry Men” focuses on a jury's deliberations in a capital murder case. The jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old boy from the slums accused of stabbing and killing his father. If the boy is found guilty, he will be sentenced to death by electrocution. The case appears to be open and shut. The defendant has a weak alibi. A knife he claimed to have lost is the murder weapon found at the scene. Also, he claimed to be at the movies, but couldn’t recall what movies he’d seen or the actors who played in them. There were several witnesses who either heard screaming, saw the boy fleeing the scene, or witnessed the killing. Eleven of the jurors immediately cast guilty in a preliminary vote; only Juror No. 8, Mr. Davis, casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis' bases his vote on the need to simply discuss the case further. He feels that they should take their time and discuss the case since a young boy’s life is at stake. All jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty before hastily making a decision. As the deliberations begin, the story quickly becomes a study of the jurors' personalities, ranging from quiet and shy to arrogant and merciless. In the end, Mr. Davis provides enough reasonable doubt to all the evidence provided to convince the eleven jurors that a verdict of not guilty should be given to the defendant.…

    • 833 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    12 Angry Men - 7
    • 1108 Words
    • 5 Pages

    12 Angry Men - 7

    The character in this movie that was the most effective critical thinker was juror 8(Henry Fonda). The types of characteristics that Fonda, exemplify is provisionalism, creativity, and critical thinking. By doing this he is uncover new ways of interpreting evidence, turns to certainty and shortsightedness when arriving at conclusions. For example, Fonda commented on how the boy had been slapped around all his life and was treated poorly. This kind of thinking leads to more external attributions—it was the way the boy was treated in life, not something inherent about the boy or his character.…

    • 1108 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    12 Angry Men
    • 907 Words
    • 4 Pages

    12 Angry Men

    Henry Fonda is an architect who from the beginning of the movie leads the situation by having doubts as to the proper verdict for the case and questioning the others. He is initiative when he asks the men to discuss the case in further detail. Fonda shows that through teamwork they can all agree on what is right and he slowly persuades the jurors to vote ‘not guilty’ with his influence. Of all the jurors, he is more aware not only of his self but the situation and those around…

    • 907 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    12 Angry Men
    • 1085 Words
    • 5 Pages

    12 Angry Men

    12 Angry Men is a 1957 movie which can teach anyone about the way a group works together and how leaderships styles can prevail. In this movie we are shown both good and bad leadership styles. “12 Angry Men” is a tale about a jury’s debate regarding a capital murder case. The majority of the movie is a 12-man jury debating the murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused with stabbing his father to death, if a guilty verdict is reached it will mean an automatic death sentence for the buy. This case seems to be a clear cut guilty verdict; The alibi of the defendant is weak, the knife found at the scene of the crime is the same as the one he says he had lost, there is multiple witnesses claiming to have either saw the murder, heard the murder…

    • 1085 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    12 Angry Men
    • 949 Words
    • 4 Pages

    12 Angry Men

    The 1957 film Twelve Angry Men serves as an excellent example demonstrating sources of power and influence tactics in leadership. At the start, the Foreman of the Jury sits at the head of the table and assigns each juror a number. He is using a legitimate source of power because he holds the position title and serves as a formal authoritative figure for the jury. The Foreman also facilitates the initial voting and discussion on the reasons why each jury member felt that way. The jury was almost unanimous, with the exception of Juror #8 who won’t vote guilty. His leadership skills and tactics are very apparent early on in the film, as he suggests the group not be so quick to move on. Instead of jumping on the band wagon, he voices his opinions and doubts because a man’s life is on the line. He used several different influence tactics while defending the boy on trial. He started with some personal appeals by talking about how the boy was abused by his father and grew up in the slums. This information sparked juror number 5 to start doubting the boy being guilty because he could relate to his situation. After some discussion, he instilled a new voting system where everyone’s votes were anonymous. Juror number 8 even suggested that his vote not count to give the group a sense of consensus. I feel like this may have been an attempt at ingratiation influence because he was making it seem he cared about what the group wanted and would sacrifice his opinion if no one else agreed. This is also an example of an exchange because he was making a deal with the fellow members of the jury. Following this vote, juror number 8 began using rational persuasion by showing a similar knife, setting up a mock apartment to see if the older gentleman’s story was possible, getting the jury to think about the train and the amount of time it takes it to pass by, etc. Juror 8 identifies some flaws and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, but he allowed the jury to make their own doubts…

    • 949 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Twelve Angry Men
    • 543 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Twelve Angry Men

    Throughout the film jury bias was evident towards the defendant. The halo effect is very apparent in the movie “12 Angry Men”. The halo effect is a type of cognitive bias in which our overall impression of a person influences how we feel and think about his or her character. Essentially, your overall impression of a person impacts your evaluations of that persons specific traits. At the beginning of the movie eleven of the twelve jurors automatically believed the boy was guilty mostly because they put their trust in the judicial system. What I mean by this statement, is, that the jurors believed he was guilty because he was on trial. So, before even listening to the case they put their trust in the investigators and had a guilty verdict waiting for the defendant. The halo effect was slowly built up for one character in the film. Throughout the movie Henry Fonda slowly persuaded the other jurors to change their votes. The impression he made on the men slowly influenced them to put thought in the case to come to a logical verdict. Fundamental attribution error is the tendency to make attributions to internal causes when focusing on someone else’s behavior. Fundamental attribution error is seen in Juror #3. He believes that the defendant is absolutely guilty and is the antagonist to the constantly calm Juror #8. During the film Juror #3 has emotional baggage due to the fact that he and his son have not spoken in two years. The last time he spoke to his son ended in a physical confrontation and the poor relationship with his own son biased his views toward the defendant. Recency bias is a tendency for some people to focus on “what’s happened lately” when evaluating or judging something. This is very apparent in the film and continued to be brought up by juror #3. Juror #3 believed the boy to…

    • 543 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    12 Angry Men: Parts
    • 544 Words
    • 3 Pages

    12 Angry Men: Parts

    Throughout the deliberation, Juror number 3 used intimidation to make his point. He acted as a bully in attempting to push around other jurors. Juror number 8 tries to include everyone in the group and show them that they have a voice. His strategy is more successful. Number 8 is open to anyone persons input and listens to everyone’s point of view. Number 3 is very close-minded.…

    • 544 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Psychological Testing
    • 404 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Psychological Testing

    During the jury decision process, communication barriers were present. All of the members that were involved in the jury had different backgrounds and culture. Many of the juries expressed anger, frustration and stubbornness regarding their respective positions. These jurors frequently interrupted one another and proved to be very disrespectful within the group. Communication barriers where present when they did not pay attention to each other. These barriers were evident when the jurors were centered only on their personal opinions and not willing to listen to their peers.…

    • 404 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Ek Ruka Hua Faisla
    • 517 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Ek Ruka Hua Faisla

    All 12 jurors had their own understanding and rationale behind their actions. Information sharing and consensus building is important to make the decision. Every member is a potential contributor to the process of decision making, which involves understanding the problem, breaking it down to meaningful components, formulating a general strategy in terms of a sequence of action steps, generating alternatives, providing and pooling the required information, generating favourable and unfavourable points for each alternative, coming to a shared understanding, making a final choice, and getting the commitment of all members to the choice made. The commitment of the jurors to the implementation of the solution is thus assured. In this case, the decision making style of the group was mainly a participative style. All the jurors proceeded through the entire decision making process. The role of leader (Juror 1) was that of a process facilitator. As the consequence of the decision made by the jurors was very serious (conviction of murder), it was very important for the decision to be made after ‘Deep Deliberation’. In this style, the person spends large amounts of time and attention weighing out all possible options before deciding on one. A person places great time and importance on the decision.…

    • 517 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More