Before the next class, watch the film comment on it in a way that responds to 3 or 4 of the following prompts: 1) What procedures were used in the film to govern who spoke? Were the rule for speaking productive or counter productive? 2) What voting procedures were used in the film to make decisions? What over arching rules were there for decision making? How did decision-making rules and procedures affect the outcome? 3) What role did reasoning and evidence play in the decision process? Were those who claimed to be basing their decision on “facts” always the most committed to the rational process? 4) What role did emotion play in the discussion. Was it positive, negative, or both? 5) Do you think the demographic composition of the jury affected the why it discussed the case and the outcome it reached? How?
56 thoughts on “12 Angry Men”
Comments are closed.
The procedure for deliberation among the 12 jurors was simple, but productive. One juror (#1) appointed Foreman of the group constructed a loose order for discussion by going clockwise around the table. Procedure broke apart as the jurors became divided, but only after the more “excitable” spoke with limitation, and those less proactive were encouraged to offer their thoughts. The Foreman also strongly enforced a voting procedure by administering a secret ballot or roll call vote upon request, offering the opportunity for objections to the voting method.
The rule requiring a 12-0 vote allowed one juror to force a discussion instead of sending the defendant to his death without deliberation, and while this juror was witty, he also relied heavily upon procedure to help convince the others. For example, the opportunity to call for votes allowed jurors the option of formally stating their change of opinion. Once the decision became 10-2, the numerical statement of greater uncertainty drove others to reconsider. The voting also created breaks in what were tiring deliberations, giving some jurors time to reconsider, and others time to formulate their argument (i.e. realizing potential errors in the witnesses’ stories, and justification for those errors).
The jurors’ motives for their opinions, specifically those who remained in favor of a guilty verdict, were in question throughout the deliberations. One man was accused of being a sadist with personal prejudice. Another, the last holdout, we learn had a bias against the accused because he related the trial’s story to his own broken father-son relationship. The accusation that individuals held opinions only out of stubbornness was thrown. Anger, frustration, sorrow, and curiosity were all factors that ignited rational and irrational arguments throughout the film. The initial “not guilty” juror first appealed to the old juror with a calm plea to discuss possible doubt of guilt. Later on, others connected to his plea when he angrily accused another juror of sadism. Perhaps this transition from calm to anger made him appear more sincere and therefore convincing in the face of another whose anger was a constant. Finally, the last pro “guilty” juror ripped his son’s portrait in a fit, candidly realizing through his own outrage that there was in fact reasonable doubt.
I agree with your point on voting procedure – it did seem like peer pressure played a huge part in the votes. In the beginning of the film, there were a few hesitant jurors that voted guilty with the majority. As different types of votes were called, jurors felt more comfortable changing their minds or voting not guilty. Allowing for breaks also provided jurors with time to learn more about their fellow jurors’ backgrounds, which helped them relate to why the jurors were making the decisions that they did.
I watched the film thinking about all other possible juries that did not have a juror like #8 to provide the basic reminder that it is the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt, not the defense to prove innocence. I agree that the procedure was productive. Though it dissolved, it gave every man the initial opportunity to voice his opinion. This was initially designed to convince #8 why he was incorrect, but it ultimately helped #8, and eventually others, recognize flaws in the witnesses’ stories. The opportunity for everyone to state an opinion also offered a lasting voice to others who otherwise would not have been outspoken. Perhaps the old juror who provided the final convincing argument would not have done so without the procedural right to speak at the beginning of the deliberations.
It’s always interesting to re-watch a film with a critical lens. Since it is a black and white film and I am unfamiliar with the actors, I was not necessarily able to keep the characters straight in previous viewings. This is the first time I really paid attention to each individual character and their motivations.
Certain characters presented arguments based on facts, reasoning and evidence – particularly Jurors #8, #3 and #4. Juror #4’s main personality trait was his rationality and faith in the evidence. Juror #4 only changed his vote to “not guilty” after a flaw in the evidence was presented to him in a rational way. Juror #3 recorded all of the evidence from the trial in a notebook, which he kept referring to throughout the film. However, as soon as evidence was disproven or suspect, he focused on testimony and ignored the evidence he was previously using to justify his “guilty” vote. Juror #8, although he began his argument out of an emotional response, used reasoning to persuade his fellow jurors. This is particularly noticeable when he uses the example of the Old Man’s testimony. Juror #8 reenacts the Old Man’s possible path on the night of the murder to point out the problems with the testimony. Juror #8 plays off of everyone’s reliance on evidence when he discusses how the Old Man and the Woman’s testimony could not both be true.
Emotion was also a major motivation in the film. Juror #3, though he publicly relied on facts, was motivated by his relationship with his son. He was determined to vote “guilty” because the defendant reminded him of his strained relationship with his son. Emotion also swayed the vote of Juror #5. Many of the other jurors, particularly Juror #10, exhibit a personal bias against the defendant because of his socioeconomic status – which is similar to that of Juror #5. This animosity towards the defendant because of his background causes Juror #5 to change his vote to “not guilty.” Additionally, Juror #10 changes his vote to “not guilty” after he has made every other juror uncomfortable with is angry, ethnocentric rant.
The voting procedures also played a role in how the jurors voted. Juror #1 presided over the votes. He was often in charge of suggesting votes, yet other members of the jury would suggest voting methods. The first vote was taken by raising hands. Some jurors hesitantly raised their hands to vote “guilty” after seeing many other jurors voting that way. Juror #9, the second to vote “not guilty,” only did so after the second vote was done by secret ballot. Immediately after the vote was cast, other jurors were outraged and accused each other of switching votes. As more jurors were persuaded to vote “not guilty,” they were more comfortable publicly displaying their votes. It would have been interesting to see how the first vote would have turned out if it was taken by secret ballot, instead of the public raising of hands.
I had not considered that as time went on, public votes were more acceptable and, therefore, more likely valid, because there were more “not guilty” votes. It’s true that there could not be as much targeted bullying as the numbers became more evenly split. Anonymous votes protect those who could not vote publicly for fear of backlash, but if there are more people on their side, they are almost bolstered against attack. I guess it is true that there is safety in numbers.
Megan and Emma, the safety in numbers concept really resonates with me as well. I mention this in my full comment, but I re-watched the first vote and noticed that 5 jurors noticeably (and hesitantly) put their hands up after the first 6 jump to declare the defendant as guilty. I think even having 2 “not guilty” votes from the onset (something I view as plausible if a secret ballot was taken) would have established a much different and less hostile deliberative tone.
It is interesting when we think of group dynamics and the phenomena of groupthink in situations like this. Studies have been conducted, where a group of individuals are presented with a problem and asked for the solution (ex. which of three straws is the longest–one being the obvious answer). If all but one member of the group is pulled aside before the experiment and instructed to give the same incorrect answer to the question in open forum, the one remaining member (knowing the correct response but having heard all the incorrect responses) will second-guess and sometimes fold to the group–providing the same incorrect response.
It would have been interesting to see the movie play out with blind ballots for the entire process…likely a scene not nearly as worthy of being a movie however.
I think that’s an awesome point. Just from a film archetype perspective, the one thing to notice is that Juror 8 (Henry Fonda, a big name in film, so this is no coincidence) is practically infallible. He’s the angel-figure sent (even wearing a lighter color jacket) to clear the minds and guilt of the other characters. Juror 8 forces them to confront their own problems and prejudices. He makes no mistakes…when Juror 7 is in line to miss a baseball game, Juror 8 ruins it for him by extending the process, but wait! It starts pouring, the game is probably cancelled, crisis averted. Juror 3 votes guilty? Juror 8 helps him realize that he’s only voting guilty because he’s looking through the damaged lens of his relationship with his own son.
The process of running an open vote initially, seemed to convince the jurors with some doubt (if you see the shot, the first jurors to change their minds later on actually hesitate when raising their hands in favor of guilty!) into a groupthink scenario. But here, Juror #8 does the opposite of folding – he causes his colleagues to alter their decisions. One person can make all the difference by encouraging even a seed of doubt into the minds of the other jurors. Communication and decision-making can seem straightforward (declaring a verdict and leaving in time for the ballgame) until even a little bit of resistance enters the scenario and deliberation really starts.
I agree with you Krzys, a moral person does what is right for the group or society as a whole, not what is just right for themselves or one other person at any given point in time. In 12 Angry Men the voice of moral reason is clearly Juror Number 8, who from the beginning is the only “Not Guilty” vote because he believes they should at least talk about the court case of the Hispanic boy before they send him ultimately to his death. Juror 8 had integrity; he realized that his own actions shaped who he was and what would happen to the young boy. He was thoughtful in his consideration of the evidence and the case, for he realized that not only were the jurors proving the integrity of the judicial system, but in addition the conscience of the jurors were at stake too. Juror 8 called into question all the evidence, such as the knife, the old man walking to his door, the woman seeing the murder, and proved it all to be circumstantial evidence and not one hundred percent true, that there was reasonable doubt that it did not all go down as stated in court on the night of the murder. A moral person thinks things through, examines them against right and wrong, and doesn’t let their own personal bias get in the way of their decision. They uphold their integrity and realize the severity of the situation, because as they know “a boy may die.”
If the first vote had been held as a ballot vote instead of a raised-hand vote, I’d like to believe that Juror #8 would have still voted not guilty and come out with the same perspectives he discussed throughout the film. I believe that if all of the votes had been taken by ballot throughout the film and kept anonymous until after the totals came in for each vote, the arguments made would have been more organized with fewer individuals speaking out of turn or just plain yelling at each other. Voting with hands raised allowed for interruptions in the process and for arguments to breakout during the middle of the voting process.
Craig, I agree that if the first vote had been held as secret ballot, juror # 8 would have voted “not guilty”, but I also believe that maybe more of them would have voted that way from the first time. You can see that when they are raising their hands, some of them are more hesitant raise it after seeing everyone around raising their hand – maybe they were not so secure and didn’t want to be against the rest of the group.
I agree, and as we discussed in class, we would have probable seen a different outcome if the first vote would have been a secret ballot instead. From the moment they took the vote, we can see that some of those that voted guilty were hesitant about their vote. This may be related to emotion, peer pressure or insecurity. At the same time, many of them may not have been interested at all in finding the try facts, but were just basing their decision on the information presented at trial – which is not what a jury should do. At this point we see how the demographics of the jury play a big role. The film does not explicitly mention the race or social status of the young man accused of killing his father, but from the discussion we can assume that he was probably not well off, or not from a prestigious family, and lived in a poor neighborhood. I believe that the discussion would have been different if the accused was a wealthy business man, or a prestigious lawyer, or part of a wealthy family.
12 Angry Men exemplifies the effects of prejudice in an ambiguous situation. At the beginning of the deliberation, the rule governing who had the right to speak was simple. Each juror spoke in the order of their given number. They sat in order and simply went around the table. The procedures intended to govern who spoke was structured to maintain an amicable environment. This was maintained until emotions overcame consensus, and people began speaking out of turn due to disagreement and eventually ad homonym. The rules for speaking were absolutely productive. It is not the rules that were the problem but rather the quick and irrational judgement of certain jurors.
The voting procedures used accomplished their intended purpose in each instance. The first vote was through simply raising hands. This allowed the jury to get a quick synopsis of where each person stood. After the initial vote, some discussion, and tempers began to rise, a blind ballot was called (with the lone vindicator abstaining from the vote). This presented the opportunity to change your vote without revealing you identity. The only reason why this was not achieved was because one juror berated another to a different juror confessed to the change in heart.
Reasoning and evidence were the cornerstones of each juror’s decision making process. They convinced themselves of that. When the jurors first conferred, each claimed the reason for their vote was the evidence presented by the lawyers. As the movie progressed, it became increasingly clear that certain jurors did not even care about the evidence but just wanted to leave while other jurors were steadfast and stubborn. Though each juror thought evidence and reasoning was essential to their own decision making, it is obvious though it was true for some, there were jurors who were influenced by their own prejudices.
Emotions generally caused a negative reaction, leading to irrationality. When each piece of evidence was discussed, the “excitable” juror immediately dismissed its reasoning based on his own disappointment of his relationship to his son. His strong feelings manifested in harsh rhetoric and a dismissive attitude.
Adam- I agree with your point that the rules for speaking were productive. I also believe that starting the discussion by juror number was an efficient and effective way to conduct the deliberation. I think it was also effective to make sure each juror was present, when someone got up from the table, they would all break and wait until everyone was back. I think that was an important part of the speaking procedures. It made sure that each juror heard all the arguments for and against the suspect. I agree that it wasn’t until emotions surpassed some of the jurors’ judgments that began to cause the heated debates.Each juror did get a fair chance to speak and to be heard, some were interrupted but the interruptions in-fact only added to proving points and essentially did help to reach the final verdict.
12 Angry Men serves as not only a highly acclaimed and entertaining film, but also as a tool for understanding the many facets of deliberation. From the procedural approaches to decision making to the effect emotions have on discussions, the film depicts good and bad aspects of deliberation.
There seemed to be few mandated procedures used to make decisions. Lawfully, the final vote regarding the guilt of the accused had to be unanimous, but how the jury arrived at the verdict was up to those in the room. The rest of the decisions, such as when they would declare a hung jury or break for dinner, were a majority rule. For these more simple decisions, silence seemed to represent agreement. The jury foreman directed the voting and speaking order, and also took a role keeping order and decorum. Specifically, he chose when votes would be verbal or via a hand count as well as when they were anonymous. Often motivated by speed, he would chose to take a hand count or tally verbal votes. During these open votes, it was inevitable that group pressure would affect the outcome of the vote. Many times during deliberation, jurors would change votes based on aggression and pressure from other jurors. It is human nature to feel a need to belong. Fitting in and avoiding exclusion are strong motivations. For these reasons, public votes may be doubted. Anonymity would enable more freedom to the voters, removing the targeted backlash and ridicule that inevitably came with dissenting votes. The anonymous vote, until the first juror to change his vote was bullied into revealing himself, seemed to be the most reliable. Unfortunately, the final few votes were public, therefore raising doubt about the sincerity of the verdict.
Emotion was at the root of these deliberations, and seemed to both positively and negatively affect the outcome. It was the first dissenting juror’s intuition, calmed emotions and passion for justice that saved the boy from the electric chair. It is not easy to fight for the minority opinion, and without his controlled emotional approach, he would have lost credibility. Anger and passion made the movie interesting. Motivation, whether it was a baseball game or sustaining a prejudice, heightened emotions. Those more “excitable” and hot headed often lost rationality in defense of their ego. Ultimately, prolonged agitation and crude language lead to a loss of credibility, and eventually those jurors were ignored. We saw from the final juror to vote “not guilty” that another layer of emotion affected his participation. When the case reminded him of his home life, the hurt he was suffering from the dissolution of his relationship with his son trickled into his rationality. Only once he broke through to those emotions did he let go of his stubbornness. Deliberations might have ended sooner, and with less aggression, if he had been less emotional; however, his stubbornness seemed to help strengthen others’ “not guilty” vote. It was important that the jurors be sure in their decision.
It was clear that the demographic composition of the jury affected the deliberations. The jury consisted of twelve men, mostly middle aged and white. There was one immigrant, one old man and one man who had a similar background of the accused. The rest of the men (besides the original dissenter) stayed in agreement of the accused’s guilt the longest, appealing to their prejudices against the “slob kid from the slum”. The few who did not match the majority of the jury’s race and background were among those who quickly changed their votes to ” not guilty”. Their prejudices were less ingrained as the others, and they were more able to appeal to rationality and facts. If a mother, more individuals from the same socioeconomic background of the accused and a wider age range were represented on the jury, the deliberations may have been calmer and appealed to facts rather than volatile emotions.
You bring up a very good point about the role of emotion in the deliberative process. Interestingly, the first dissenting juror seemed to be one of the only un-emotionally involved individuals–leading to further introspection from other members as time moved along and emotions rose and fell. Perhaps the title should have been “11 Angry Men.”
I also wonder if the role of emotions were removed from this situation all together, would we consider what is left of the deliberative process a thorough examination?
I think ideally we as Americans would prefer a jury of our peers to be as objective as possible in reviewing the details of any case and would therefore lead to a thorough examination.
What concerns me is the Jury Selection process and how attorneys are able to weed out potential jurors who will see their client in an unfavorable way before the trial has begun. In the case of “12 Angry Men”, I could only imagine that the defense attorney was either sleeping or terribly hungover during the Voir Dire process and didn’t notice what the prosecuting attorney was trying to do; stack the jury in favor of a guilt verdict. Juror #8 may have been fortunate enough to have made it into the Jury pool simply by being a middle-aged caucasian male.
As a recent immigrant from Ukraine, where we do not have juries, it was interesting for me to see how regular citizens participate in deciding the fate of a stranger. Since corruption is a problem in Ukrainian courts, I wonder whether having juries decide certain cases would reduce corruption—since juries cannot easily be bribed like judges can.
I actually disagree with you regarding the voting procedures. I feel that if all the voting had been anonymous the jurors may not have come to a not-guilty vote and may have had to bring a hung jury vote to the judge. It seemed like each time they voted anonymously it brought anger out in the jurors to find who the culprits were for voting not guilty. I think that by having open ballots and saying what the vote was challenged each juror to stick to their opinion and to actually defend their thought. Having an open jury policy allowed the deliberation process to really grow and allowed to each juror to question their own opinions and come to examining all the facts. It allowed for the jurors maybe even on a more subconscious level to be honest with their own votes because they had to defend each vote they made.
I think you are correct to suggest that the deliberation process would have been calmer with a more diverse jury. The men, being from such similar backgrounds (even Juror #5, at least on the surface), were very vocal with their prejudices. The lack of any pushback when they referred to “those people” only seemed to bolster their ideas. I don’t think this would have been accepted so casually in a more diverse jury.
Emma, it is interesting that you observed that “silence seemed to represent agreement.” If everyone were always silent, of course, I don’t know how a verdict would be reached. We are often taught that “silence is golden” but on the jury, if you are silent rather than trying to persuade the other jurors of the position that you firmly believe is correct, then you are not doing a service either to your own conscience or to society. So since all U.S. citizens may one day serve on a jury, each U.S. citizen has to be prepared to communicate effectively with fellow jurors so that justice is done. On the jury, silence is NOT golden. 🙂
I agree that the rules for speaking were very productive. By continuously restating and re-describing the facts that certain jurors were clinging to as proof of guilt, other jurors had the opportunity to find holes in the evidence. Without the juror rubbing his nose while defending his position of “guilt” or the call for reenactments, the jury may have never realized that the woman wore glasses or that the el train would have been to loud to hear “I’m going to kill you”. If they had not established this discussion-based system early on, the jurors might have gotten away with changing their votes simply to agree and get out of that room more quickly. I don’t think that, as a participant on a jury, I would have conducted discussions any differently.
The decision making process is everything but an exact science. In 12 Angry Men, this fact rings true as the audience is borne witness to the very unscientific phenomena of what it is to be human. We use various forms of argument and even more varied attempts at reasoning in our everyday lives. And when placed in a room to decide the fate—live or die—of another human being, the deliberative process between individuals can quickly deteriorate.
The film hinges on evidence and reasoning—evidence that must prove beyond a reasonable doubt—that a presumed innocent man is guilty of murder. It is difficult foremost, for the jury in this instance to set aside immediate presumptions for a larger and healthier deliberative process. It began with one dissenting opinion, fueled by rationale that ran as wild as the emotions and austere environmental stimuli of the situation. 12 men came to the table with different opinions, holding onto different pieces of the puzzle, and motivated in very different ways. The outcome of which resulted in what might be considered a defective verdict.
First, the rules for communication and deliberation broke down when tempers flared. What started as a methodical and productive course of action to address the dissenting opinion of one juror, ended in a bending of the rules. For the sake of further inquiry, the group began with a round-robin explanation of individual opinions, but by the end of the first go-round, there was another actor calling the shots and a change in discourse.
Voting procedure, which initially called for a simple raising of the hands—a tally—of where the group stood, turned into various procedures called for at different times throughout the debate. Instead of an examination of the picture painted by the presented evidence in the courtroom, holes were poked in the canvas with the assumption that an incomplete picture means no picture at all. Pieces of evidence, outside the scope of investigation (a knife procured in a manner which should have produced a mistrial, for instance) were produced as the rules for communication broke down and voting procedures went awry within the group.
The jury would have benefited with an initial examination of each piece of evidence, a discussion followed by a totality of the circumstances, and a blind vote to keep emotions at bay. These emotions intermingled with environment—the human factors—were obvious mitigating pieces in the deliberative process as well. What started as a boiling pot—a man bent on catching a baseball game, a prejudice, a broken home, appeals to emotion (to name a few), hot-boxed with environmental factors of heat and pressure for time, ended with rain that likely canceled the game and a seemingly broken fan that comes to life to cool the mood. Tides turn as the pressure valves of the situation release and the rules for examining evidence and decision-making run amuck. The lack of clear guidance on the rules for the discussion and voting led to ad hoc hypotheses and altered votes based on individual examinations of testimony and evidence instead of a discussion of reasonable doubt to the prosecution’s case in its entirety.
Thus, although alternative methods prevailed—from communication and voting procedures, to the decision-making process with respect to reasoning and evidence—the end result of deeper deliberation was realized. The process of decision-making within the group, to the ends of reaching a verdict, was productive albeit flawed, and the audience is left with a very human account of reasoning under stress—the very unscientific phenomena.
Upon viewing this film for a second time, my appreciation for the intricacies of the plot, dialogues and script has grown.
The selection of the Jury appeared fairly diverse (by 1950’s standard) and included a cross section of the society which the law mandates. The conversation between jurors started out as polite. At first it seemed like an open and shut case. 11 out of the 12 jurors had walked into the room already knowing the decision they were going to make. The voting was at first conducted through the raising of hands. Once a deadlock seemed apparent, the rules of conversion and decision making had to be identified. These rules, although followed for the most part were frequently abandoned due to heated arguments and at times physical confrontations. The over-arching rule and hence ultimately the goal was a unanimous verdict either way.
Most jurors knew and understood the consequences of their decisions and seemed to have a clear idea of what their duties and responsibilities were as jurists. However, a number of the stronger personalities took center stage in determining, in what direction the conversations were lead. These conversations brought out the true characteristics of each juror in the room. By the end, the viewer may even have arrived at a completely different opinion about a juror then when he/she first heard him speak.
Juror #8 having first disagreed to the majority verdict of ‘guilty’ sets the tone of the argument. Juror 3 & 4 assuming leadership positions for the rest, challenges juror 8 to prove the soundness of his argument. The ball starts rolling and juror 8 through sound reasoning, rational and common sense analysis of the events discussed in the courtroom, invalidates and dismisses many of the prosecution’s main points.
This culminates into a wider argument that involves jurors 5,9,11 who now change their positions. Emotions start taking a negative role in the debate. It starts to bring out jurors personal biases and engulfs their personal lives into the mix. Certain jurors remain outside the fray for the entire length of the episode coming into the conversation only to loosen up what by now has become an almost hostile environment (jurors 1, 2, 6 and 12).
Juror 9 through out the conversation grows into the discussion, gains authority and finally provides the critical piece of evidence that helps in reaching a consensus (Witness’s eye glass ordeal) while juror 3 is left deeply exposed in his claims which he strongly professes were based on nothing but facts. One juror who maintains decorum throughout is juror 4 and until the very end seems confident in his beliefs but once he is shown the error in his judgment, graciously admits his error and accepts what by now has become a general view among most jurors; the innocence of the defendant. Juror 7 and 10 through their highly selfish, obnoxious and misplaced views about society bring about a sense of dislike within the jury selection process.
What I feel was very beneficial and almost critical to arriving at a final consensus was the frequency of conducting a vote, both open and secret. It gave the conversation a sense of clarity and kept the viewer highly involved.
Having the experience of serving on a murder jury personally, I can safely say that the experience does leave you with having a stronger belief in the criminal justice system in this country and I feel that this movie to a great extent provides a similar sense a renewed belief in this countries criminal justice system.
Ahmed, your past experience as a juror on a murder trial must have added a very profound level of connection to this film and the real-world importance of a fair deliberative process. I really appreciate your point about the high frequency of votes. I hadn’t thought about how powerful a tool it is to re-engage the audience with high frequency voting (regardless of procedure). It would have been infinitely harder to keep track of votes as the deliberation progressed without consistent vote recounts. In addition to the audience benefitting from the high frequency of votes, the jurors seemed to benefit from constantly hearing out loud where the group vote stood. I speculate the deliberative process would have unfolded in a much messier and more disorganized manner without as many votes.
It was very interesting to witness how the jurors changed their deliberative dynamic as the film progressed. Procedures that governed who spoke when and how jurors voted were not consistent throughout the film. Sometimes jurors would express themselves by juror number in an organized manner, and other times by natural flow of conversation, the latter being a platform for those who had stronger personalities to lash out on opposing opinions. I think the speaking rules worked for the group because when tensions got too high, jurors were able to inject a certain order in the deliberation by speaking by juror number; they were able to reset in a way. Voting procedures were also inconsistent, as voting was sometimes carried out by ballot and other times by roll call, but I don’t think the inconsistency in voting procedures was productive. It seemed that a “herd” mentality was adopted when jurors were prompted to vote by roll call and not by ballot. I think the initial vote may have resulted in less “guilty” votes if ballot voting was used at the onset. I re-watched the first vote a few times and noticed that 5 jurors put their hands up noticeably after the original 6 jurors who raised their hands without hesitation. It seems to me that the initial vote could have been different if cast by ballot.
Reason and evidence became more important as the jurors got deeper into their deliberation, and as barriers to objectivity – emotion, personality, perception, prejudice, time constraints, peer pressure – were worked through. As a viewer, it was really interesting to have such close-ups into the “a-ha” moment each juror who had voted “guilty” at the onset of the deliberation experienced. Those who claimed to be basing their stances on facts and evidence eventually, when pressed to explain their reasoning, either realized a reasonable doubt could be found in the case (juror #4 changing his decision because of the eyeglass marks) or arrived at a personal blockade to objectivity (the falling out juror # 3 had with his son and the prejudice felt by juror #10).
Emotion played positive and negative roles. Throughout the film, I thought about whether or not the writers purposely overstated the jurors’ emotions in the movie to enable the viewer to see and feel the immense power of emotion in deliberation. Juror #8 wasn’t convinced at the onset that the defendant should be absolved of his charges, but his respect for life and the law enabled an ultimately fruitful discussion that was based more on reason than emotion.
If you look at that same shot where the jurors initially vote, the ones who hesitate are in fact the ones who change their minds first, it’s pretty well composed.
I like to think about the absence of rational thinking in critical situations. I recently watched a documentary featuring JFK’s Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, titled “The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara” where in one part he describes the Cuban Missile Crisis, and who prevailed in the decision-making process surrounding it. The interesting take away was that rationality seemed to fly out of the door when the situation got tense – but there always had to be a cooler head present, a person with enough clout and personality to avoid escalation. Juror 8 reminded me of that person. He didn’t just have reason and logic, he also had personality and the determination to make his point and convince the others to see things from a different perspective.
Was that last juror’s change of heart well reasoned? A decision that seems very emotional at first, as evidenced by him shredding the photo. The sour relationship with his son could not have driven all of the arguments that he presented beforehand… But, it certainly did cloud his ability to see that perhaps there was enough reasonable doubt to favor acquitting the young man. The point is not to prove innocence, but to prove that guilt cannot be proven.
Ultimately, every man confronted his own life experience with prejudice (either as a victim or perpetrator), with the exception of Juror 4 who seemed to be convinced through logic. But, emotions are not always easy to cast aside when decisions are to be made – and they provide for better filmmaking!
Isabella, I like how you described the phyche of the men in question and the various constraints they were under when trying to decipher the case piece by piece.
‘Time constraints’ and ‘peer pressure’ are two important elements that shaped the course of the conversations as you eloquently pointed out. I also agree with your ‘herd mentality’ comment but I do think that in an informal setting where the rules are loosely defined, the jurors did do a pretty good job establishing a certain degree of consistency in their methods.
Reasoning and evidence played a pivotal role in swaying the jurors throughout the movie. Several of the jurors who believed individual witness testimonies were factual changed their minds when Juror #8 argued that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and not the defense. Reasoning that because the pieces of evidence tell a convincing story, therefore the person on trial is guilty is flawed logic. The final two jurors who changed their votes both had believed their point of views to be logical. However, once Juror #8 discussed their views with them he presented them with enough reasonable doubt not to convict.
The role of emotion in the film had both a positive and negative effect on the discussions the Jurors had. Generalizations and racist remarks made by jurors throughout the film clearly proved that several of them were biased and unable to think objectively about the case. At times, I even felt that Henry Fonda’s character was overly closed minded about the opinions of his fellow jurors. The jurors had become frustrated from the record-breaking high temperatures and therefore more honest and forthcoming about their beliefs during the deliberations. As a result, it was positive that several of the guilty-voting jurors were open with their thoughts and this allowed the other jurors to point out the holes in their logic.
The demographic composition of this jury certainly affected the way the case was discussed, however I am unsure if it would have changed the overall outcome. First, its worth noting that the possibility of such a jury taking shape in a case like this could have been possible in 1957. The Civil Rights Act did not pass until 1964 making it plausible that a jury made up of all Caucasian, middle aged men could have to make a decision regarding an accused criminal of a different race. That being said, If the jury had included individuals from different races, I believe that the racist beliefs held by some of the jurors would have been addressed far earlier in the film instead of near the end, which could actually have ended the deliberations sooner since jurors would have been reminded to be more objective in their decision making.
I was also thinking a bit about the purpose of emotion – it’s interesting what you wrote about the importance of jurors being honest and forthcoming about their beliefs. I think that was what is most instructive about this kind of unanimous consensus decision-making process. Deliberation is stronger when it gathers insight from the whole group rather than going with a simple yes/no vote of the majority. The rationale & motivation/assumptions behind each vote were as important if not more important than the vote itself. It’s what was needed to be exposed and considered in order for the whole jury to make a more informed decision together.
You also raise the issue of time, that this jury make-up was plausible given that it occurred before the Civil Rights Act. Depressingly, all (or majority) white juries are still far too common an occurrence even today, but what’s more, after decades of the War on Drugs and mandatory sentencing, it’s even less likely that black defendants’ cases even go to a jury for deliberation. We live in an area of plea bargains and unprecedented prosecutorial power – few cases go to trial or even have judicial discretion.
Added a couple articles about that here:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/04/study-all-white-juries-more-likely-convict-black-defendants
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2013/jan/15/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-criminal-cases-being-plea-bargained/
The role of reasoning and evidence was very important during jury arguments presented in the movie. From the beginning, those who were convinced of a guilty verdict, were basing their decision on the evidence presented a trial: the fact that the neighbor across the street testified that she saw the guy kill his father, the testimony of the old man who heard an argument right before the killing. However, as one of them mentions during the arguments, it was very easy to come to a guilty conclusion by looking at the evidence from the surface, but when digging deeper into the facts, there was room for doubt.
At the same time, emotion played a big role. From the beginning, juror # 8 who voted not guilty, was always calm and never raised his voice. Those who were more vocal and convinced that he was guilty, were yelling, insulting other jurors, but never really presenting clear arguments to defend the facts presented in court. Juror # 8, through his analysis of the situation and the facts, was able to finally convince all of them that the boy was not guilty.
The demographic composition of the jury definitely played a role in the arguments. At various points of the discussion, some jurors talk about “those people” referring to those who lived in underprivileged communities. From the beginning, that was a big part of the argument – because the boy had lived all his life in bad conditions, he must be guilty – they are all like that.
At the end, my opinion is that they came to the right conclusion. The boy may have done it, but the evidence was inconclusive and therefore, there was room for reasonable doubt. That does not necessarily mean that he was innocent, just that there as not sufficient evidence that he was guilty. And our laws are clear regarding that: everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Annette, i think you raised an important point about juror 8 clarifying the position that it is the right of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant and not as juror 3 had stated which is that the presumed guilt of the defendant had not been roundly discredited and therefore the defendant must be guilty.
You also mentioned the exchange between juror 7 and 11 and the flagrant response of juror 11 when he heard juror 7 reverse his position simply because had no interest in the matter and wanted to get out of performing his civic duty. This for me is one of the best scenes in the movie.
In my Public and Non-Profit Management Class, which I took last semester, we spent a session talking about team work and the importance of having someone play the role of a devil’s advocate/skeptic. This role prevents a team from groupthink, which is what Juror #8 does.
At the beginning of the deliberation process, it was very clear that almost all of the members of the jury wanted to get out of that room as quickly as possible. The room where the deliberation was to happen was very hot and it was easy to see that the jurors felt very uncomfortable there. They were all profusely sweating, and this emotion of discomfort played a negative role as it threatened to prevent the deliberation process from happening. During the first vote, all jurors except for juror #8 voted that the boy was guilty. When juror #8 first suggested that the jury should take some time to talk about the case, many other members of the jury did not see the point since they had already decided that outcome of the case. At the very beginning of the film emotion played a bigger (and negative) role in the decision making process as opposed to reason and evidence.
Through the persistence of Juror #8, in his role as the devil’s advocate, the votes of the jury begins to shift from guilty to non-guilty. Juror #9 places the second non-guilty vote out of emotion rather than reason. With his vote, he notes that the boy is probably guilty. However he respects that Juror #8 is standing up for his non-guilty vote against the rest of the jury and decides to provide him with a vote of support against the rest of the jury. It is possible that the secret vote gives Juror #9 to place this second non-guilty vote.
Juror #8’s presentation of more evidence that proves there is reasonable doubt within the case finally forces the jury to make their decisions based on reason and evidence as opposed to emotion. As the jury spends more and more time reviewing the evidence of the case more and more jury members begin to change their vote.
Toward the very end of the film, as the evidence continues to build up, Juror #3 realizes that he can no longer let his anger towards his son prevent him from admitting that there is indeed reasonable doubt in the case. He physically shows this by ripping up his son’s photo.
Dianna, I like your observations exhibiting why the men wanted to call a guilty verdict so early. I hadn’t considered the heat and discomfort in the room as an initial reason for not discussing the verdict further than what was obvious, which is of course their most basic responsibility.
Juror #9 was explicit in his reasoning for changing his vote to “not guilty”; he appreciated the effort of #8. It can easily become lost though, that #8 was also not convinced of the defendant’s innocence. His arguments were not fully formulated when he cast his first “not guilty” vote in the beginning of the deliberations, rather he relied on the evidence presented by others to build on his proposed verdict. Juror #8’s first goal was not to convince the other 9, but to simply discuss the possibility of innocence. I wonder at what you point, and it would be interesting to hear what you think, #8 truly became invested in overturning the guilty verdict rather than offering to do his due diligence.
Diana, I like your point about the importance of having someone play the role of Devil’s Advocate/skeptic. And Dov, I agree with you that Juror #8’s motivation was not to overturn the decision but rather to do his due diligence since he hadn’t yet made up his mind. Juror #8 made a strong point that a man’s life was at stake and they owed him at least a serious consideration of the case. He was also reminded in the washroom that if they are wrong with a ‘not guilty’ verdict, a man who committed murder would face no consequences. There are very serious implications either way. The lesson to me was that the length of time/resources spent on a deliberation process should be commensurate with the seriousness of the subject at hand.
I agree with you Dianna, the reason that the other members of the jury at first automatically voted “Guilty” was because they let an array of different elements interfere with their moral deliberations. Sometimes people get distracted, like Juror 7 trying to rush through the voting to get to a baseball game he had tickets for. Others can have prejudices against certain people, like Juror 10 who believes that people born in the slum are innately evil from birth and of course they would kill their own father, they are born liars, no question about it
Hi Megan,
I also agree that certain jurors personalities were more influenced by reason while other jurors were more influenced by emotion.
Upon first reading this blog question, I naturally thought that those jurors who are more influenced by reason will automatically make their decision primarily by looking at the evidence of the case, hence they would be more likely to vote not-guilty. While those jurors who were more influenced by emotion would allow their personal prejudices to affect their decision, and they would be more like to place a guilty vote.
However, with more reflected on this, I realized that this was not the case. For example, Juror #11, the European watch maker, is a person who’s personality is not greatly influenced by emotion. He talks in a very calm manner and rarely looses his temper through the deliberation process. However, it is interesting to me that though he is greatly influenced by reason, he still votes guilty in the very first group vote of the film. As mentioned by Isabella he is among the second group of 5 jurors who later raise their hand for guilty.
Meanwhile, in my opinion I think that Juror #8 is very influenced by emotion. He is keen to see that the jury spends time deliberating the case. Yet he is the one who is responsible for the jury taking the time to review the evidence and ultimately arriving at a non-guilty vote.
The procedures used by the jury in “12 Angry Men” to conduct their deliberation, were very loose in structure. After an initial vote, the foreman suggests moving around the table and each juror giving his view of the case. Procedures are presented on the fly and adopted if there is not initial dissent. Although the procedure was not followed exactly, it was effective in getting the conversation started, and steering it back in a productive direction when the men became sidetracked, or monopolized too much time out of turn.
Within this loose framework the deliberation involved reasoning and emotion, evidence and prejudice all of which were necessary to reach their verdict. For the majority of the jurors, reasoning and evidence play a central role in their decision-making. At the beginning of the film, the jurors have drawn a conclusion based on the state’s evidence. Eleven of the twelve jurors are convinced that the defendant in the case is guilty. The lone dissenter, Juror #8, must then make an emotional plea to continue the debate until all of the evidence has been thoroughly vetted. After considering each piece of evidence, point by point, all of the jurors are eventually swayed. While the facts of the case were the most important to the final decision, the initial emotional appeal was crucial to getting the discussion started.
The role emotion played was not always positive, however. The personal prejudices of the individuals involved were, for better or worse, an important part of their deliberation. Many of the jurors may have subconsciously been more willing to accept the “facts” as presented by the prosecution, because their prejudice was coloring their perception of the defendant. For several jurors it was not until they were confronted with this prejudice in its most extreme (the outburst of Juror #10) that they were able to perceive and set aside their own prejudices.
The most interesting thing for me, when considering the debate in the film is that when I try to frame my own arguments, I make a real effort to remove any emotional reasoning or appeals. The film seems to suggest however that these are useful and at times possibly essential tools.
Hey Ben,
Although I do agree that Juror #8’s initial plea to his fellow jurors was emotional, his reason for dissenting was not. Several of the 11 jurors who initially voted “GUILTY” were irate that this lone juror would vote against the majority, with one juror exclaiming, “There’s always one”, in reference to juror #8 being the lone voice for acquittal. Juror # 4 was the most sound in his reasoning, never getting emotional and always sighting the fact of the case and the evidence presented by the prosecution.
The jury needed to choose one of two extremes: guilty or not guilty. But there was also mention of not coming to a consensus and declaring a hung jury. The arrangement of speaking seemed to evolve throughout the deliberation. The jurors started by speaking in order, trying to convince Juror 8 why his viewpoint was wrong. Down the line, the order broke down, and those with stronger personalities took over for longer stretches of time. But, without even the formalized initial approach, the more vocal parties would dominate from the beginning up until a final decision was made. Eventually, even the passive jurors, like Juror 2, ended up voicing their opinions. Emotions aside, Juror 8 had ample opportunity to convince the other jurors, and as more of them voted not guilty, they added to his argument with their own observations.
The procedures of voting commenced with an open vote and then moved to a secret ballot. The open vote seemed fairly routine: all jurors voted guilty except for one. The one juror, number 8, opened up the alternate option. Through presentation, reason, and logic, Juror 8 built up his case to convince his colleagues. The open voting session is an interesting concept because one can see the views of others concurrently. In the film, a few of the jury members voted with hesitancy, suggesting the influence of their peers. After deliberation and arguments, the jurors managed to establish a closed ballot procedure. The second session allowed for more individual freedom. The votes were confidential (to an extent). With a procedural requirement of a 12-0 vote, the closed ballot provided the jury with votes that were less influenced by others.
Initially it appeared as if the rules would push all of the jury members to quickly vote in one direction. But when opposition interfered, the process allowed for discussion, arguments, semi-fights, and votes. Democracy in action – coming close to blows, raising emotional tempers, but eventually making a decision.
The use of evidence was crucial for both sides of the argument. At first, the evidence pointing to a guilty verdict seemed solid; most of the jurors believed it was an open-and-shut case. Of course, all of the evidence contained assumptions that were later discounted. The old man was too slow to make it to his door and see the boy running down the stairs, the woman did not have her glasses on after restlessly trying to fall asleep, the overheard argument may have not escalated into murder, the unique switchblade proved not to be so unique. Put together, the case for a guilty verdict was not beyond a doubt. After all, as Juror 8 claimed: “The burden of proof is on the prosecution.” The circumstantial evidence, almost hearsay, did not prove guilt convincingly.
Those who claimed to rely on fact and evidence were using deliberative techniques to convince their peers. Juror 8 hardly ever promoted his emotions, he knew what he had to say, and he knew that evidence (or lack thereof) backed him up. Juror 3 on the other hand, first presented all of the evidence verifying guilt – “these are facts, you can’t refute the facts.” His words appear full of reason, but later we learn that he allowed emotion to drive his reaction to the case throughout almost the entire process. However, Juror 4 (the broker) was almost completely inspired by reason, but a unique reason that conformed to his own views. Nothing swayed him until he realized how he would act in the same situation as the woman (sleeping at night, not wearing his glasses, not being able to see, etc.).
I agree with your point on claiming to use facts and evidence. It seemed like every juror threw around “facts” and “evidence” to back up their emotionally charged claims. I did find it interesting that Juror 4 only changed his opinion after the point about the glasses was brought up. Earlier in the film, the other jurors (particularly Juror 8) were trying to persuade him that it was difficult to remember details after emotional trauma. Juror 4, even though he was not under emotional distress, could not remember the name of the second feature he saw or the names of the actors. Yet even though he couldn’t remember these details, he did not change his mind about the case until later evidence was refuted.
“12 Angry Men” depicted a typical unhappy twelve jurors. Twelve men, one hot room, no working fans, most people would feel miserable and would allow their emotions to prevail, as the jurors did. This allowed for emotions to start playing a negative role on the case. Juror number three was seeking revenge upon his own son by punishing the suspect for a crime he may not have committed. Juror number sevens anxiousness to attend the ballgame made him seek a quick verdict as opposed to considering the facts. As the deliberation went on, negative emotions seemed to die down. As the sky darkened, the rain came down and the stubborn fan finally turned on. These weather conditions were a sign of change in the film, and felt like a relief to the characters. They turned negative emotions into positive ones, where the jurors were finally able to clearly review all the evidence and find reasonable doubt. The men became more compassionate to the accused as the so called cold hard facts were being disproven. They were able to see that it wasn’t so bad being on the jury and even pointed out that they were able to save the accused, had other jurors been there they may not have given him the time of day.
The twelve angry jurors were a group of white, middle to older aged, seemingly middle class, working men. Their demographic composition played a huge role in the deliberation process. In the 1950’s men were the bread winners and were expected by society to be level headed and rational. Had their been women on the jury the deliberation process would have been completely different. Woman may have not been so quick to judge the accused guilty. Women tend to focus more on emotions and feelings and would have looked into the case with a different perspective. At the time racism was very prevalent. Had there been a black person who had experienced judgement and prejudice all his life, he would have also taken a stance to protect the accused. The facts would have been examined in depth before a guilty verdict was considered.
Reasoning and evidence were secondary to emotion in the decision process. The “facts” so to speak were only examined in depth when the jurors realized that without Juror number eight voting guilty, they were not going home. Juror number three was guilty of saying the facts speak for themselves, however never actually proving a single “fact” to be true. Same goes for Jurors four and ten. They argued there was no reasonable doubt only based on surface material. Facts seemed incidental to them, even when disproven like the uniqueness of the knife and that the old man couldn’t walk from the bedroom to the front door in fifteen seconds. These jurors were not being rational, they were overcome with their own emotions and allowed those emotions to play the primary role in the decision making process.
After watching this clip from “12 Angry Men”, I think that the movie shows both the strengths and difficulties associated with the jury deliberation process. There was the lone standout in the jury, and the majority initially did not give any regard to his opinion or analysis of the case. The clip also showed how the backgrounds of the jurors affected how they evaluated the defendant, the evidence and ultimately how they vote as to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. It also seems that emotions such as anger, frustration, and impatience were driving the jury to lock down the vote. However, communication and reasoning led the jury to infer what details were missing, such as the fact that the witness who saw the accused stab his father was probably not wearing her glasses because of the marks on her nose.
#3
Set in the jury room of a murder trial, the film teases out the variety of things that should be considered in a case, which we’re generally familiar with given the pervasiveness of contemporary courtroom dramas on TV: how credible are the witnesses? Are there holes in the witness narratives? What evidence is based on speculation? How reasonable is the motive? How reasonable is the alibi? Has an ‘impartial’ jury been selected?
Beyond a thorough consideration of the information at hand, the film shows us how deliberation also requires openness, self-reflection, clear thinking, care, and a degree of calm. We could look at a few examples from the film:
1) Openness – Henry Fonda, sitting on a jury for the first time, starts the deliberation by saying something along the lines of “I don’t know if I think guilty/not guilty, I want to us to consider the evidence together” and the juror who has served on a jury several times before is closed-minded, cynical, and aloof
2) Self-reflection – The final juror switches his vote after emotionally realizing that his relationship with his son has nothing to do with the father/son relationship of the victim and the accused defendant.
3) Clear thinking – The juror who just can’t see past his prejudice is ultimately shunned from the process itself
4) Care – The juror with the baseball tickets is reprimanded for so easily switching sides without actually ever deliberating on the decision that needs to be made.
5) Calm – Henry Fonda’s character and the first juror to support him (the ‘older, wiser man’ character) never lose their temper through the process. You need that kind of ‘quiet’ in other contexts to be able to listen past those who ‘shout’ the loudest, eg with money, with lobbyists, with media & other influential connections.
The film doesn’t go far enough though when it comes to subject position and objectivity. Henry Fonda’s character is presented as impartial and he’s the one that gets to tell the others to put themselves in the defendant’s shoes. In this case, the defendant is an immigrant young man from a poor neighborhood. The jurors are mostly white, some immigrants, of diverse class backgrounds & professions (but only one is from a similarly poor neighborhood). The film takes an easy way out by making the protagonist a benevolent, white, middle-class man – that’s a subject position US mainstream society already presents as reasonable and objective. What if the jury member from the same working class neighborhood as the defendant (and the victim, for that matter) had been the one lone not guilty vote at the start of the process? Would he have been recognized by the film’s audience as impartial, open, deliberative? What if he was rightfully angry at the level of prejudice he was hearing in the jury room and expressed his anger plainly upfront? What if he felt passion about the rights of the defendant to a fair trial and adequate defense and raised these points to other jury members? He does eventually demonstrate how a switchblade would likely be used, but his character could have easily had a more central role without losing a sense of objectivity. He could have mentioned that a switchblade is commonly available without the little visual element of Henry Fonda’s character producing one. There the dispassionate, removed observer is a liability because in a contemporary jury, you can’t just do your own independent investigation and produce new evidence in the jury room.
You make a good point about the demographics of the jury, but I think what is more important than Juror #5 being able to identify with the defendant, is the knowledge base he has that the otherwise homogenous group of men lack.
Hi Namita,
Your point about the possibility of having the first non-guilty vote come from a juror who is a minority is extremely interesting. In the film, the second non-guilty vote was placed by the old man because he wanted to show support to Juror #8 who was standing up for his non-guilty vote alone against the rest of the jury. This second non-guilty vote, which then leads to more deliberation and ultimate the entire jury voting non-guilty, is given not due to reason or evidence, but rather given because the old man identifies with the principles of Juror #8.
Had the first non-guilty vote been placed by a minority, it’s possible that this second non-guilty vote would not have be placed so easily as a jury of white men would have a harder time identifying with him. Also, had the role of Juror #8 been played by a minority, his persistence in having the rest of the jury review the evidence of the case might not have been received seriously since the rest of the jury might think that he is biased and reacting to the case emotionally. This fact I think could have potentially changed the out come of the movie.
The movie ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is a vivid example of collective decision making and deliberation, in the criminal justice system, which powerfully reflects the ability of a single person to influence a group by appealing to reason rather than emotion.
After listening to the trial, every individual juror had an emotional reaction to the question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence, but emotions alone did not determine the jury’s verdict. Instead, we were shown that juror #8 expressed a position based on reason and facts from the very beginning—even though his fellow jurors, who seemed to base their early decision-making mostly on pure emotion—held the opposing view. But rather than being silenced because his viewpoint was the minority position, juror #8 became the most influential juror by questioning every piece of supposed ‘evidence’ presented by the prosecution. This process of questioning facts, rather than assuming facts, gradually influenced each other juror to set aside their emotional biases and to conclude that there existed a “reasonable doubt” about the defendant’s guilt. I think that the role of emotion in the discussion was mostly negative – something that needed to be overcome rather than reinforced.
I think that demographic factors played a role in the jury’s deliberations, but I do not necessarily believe that a different demographic composition would have necessarily led to a different verdict. The fact that all of the jurors were middle-aged or elderly white men created an atmosphere where any of them could influence the others without being accused of racial or ethnic bias towards the defendant. However, more diversity on the jury could produce a greater variety of perspectives at the outset, which could lead to a more fact-based assessment.
Lena,
I definitely agree with your assessment of the makeup of the jury, a group of fairly contiguous white men. Although there were differences among them, namely socio-economic, their commonality of “race” and gender gave each man a relatively level playing field from which to voice their opinions. Juror #8 played his position as the lone voice of reason very well, despite the relentless verbal attacks from the more impassioned and jurors convinced of the defendant’s guilt. If not for juror #8’s analysis of the facts that young man might well have been executed for a crime he may not have committed.
And yet, it is important to note that Juror #5 first voted guilty, along with 10 of his peers. He was not the one to first sympathize or connect with the defendant and it was only when the guilty vote was questioned by someone who presumably did not grow up in a slum, that he made any attempt at deliberation.
This action is testament to how sometimes we tend to separate ourselves from those we are most like in order to elevate our own status. If you are in a group where everyone is wearing a yellow shirt, and one of the group members commits an atrocity, is it easier to defend your team member against the wrath of your peers or change the color of your shirt?
Presumably, some of the characters may have been fathers, yet no one brought up the notion that this was somebody’s son.
For the most part, the Jury Foreman was the arbiter of who spoke and when. He tried to maintain order and some level of civility as each individual juror spoke about the case. When the men would acquiesce to the Foreman’s authority the process could be quite produced. The Jury Foreman would try to get consensus among the jurors and not just “rule” unilaterally. It was quite deliberative. The process would only become unproduced as the mean grew impassioned and wrestles over the verdict in question and their differing opinions. Whenever a man would request a tally of guilty vs. not guilty, the Foreman would immediately call a vote. The decision would be made among the jurors whether it was an open or a secret ballot. Because Juror # 8 was initially the lone not guilty hold out, it took all his powers of persuasion, evidentiary analysis and deliberative discussion of the details to move his fellow jurors in his direction. Juror #8 merely had to slow the process down in initially, but then he was able to cast doubt on all the evidence piece by piece to slowly sway his fellow jurors. Of all the jurors who were most ardent in their belief that the defendant was guilty, Juror #4 was the one who based his position the most on the facts. He and Juror #8 would use reason and evidence to support their positions. One of the questions that plagued them the most was whether or not the woman from the adjacent building could have seen the murder clearly through the rear cars of the passing elevated train. The other jurors who were ardently for a guilty verdict (at least towards the end) seem to be basing their decisions on prejudice (in the case of one juror) or anger towards their son (in the case of another juror). Tempers would flare as these men from different socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds were forced to come to a consensus in this hot jury room. One juror had an explicit bias towards people raised in the slums. His anger towards these people directly impacted his decision making process. The juror who was estranged from his young son took out his frustration on the young defendant. Both of their emotions were corrupted their impartiality. When I first looked at the makeup of the jury I just saw a room full of white men. It wasn’t until the movie progressed and the deliberation moved forward in earnest that I was able to notice the many divisions among these men. These men all came from different backgrounds; they were different ages and held down different jobs. All these differences played a role in their perceptions of each other and the case. The fact that they were all white men, particularly in 1957 did still bring a level of continuity and mutual respect that would not have existed had a person of color or a woman been on the jury.
In this film, the jury foreman did not set any formal speaking rules, such as taking turns. In fact, he sometimes intimidated other jurors who wanted to pose questions or make observations. His main goal was to speed up the process and not allow for a full deliberation and careful analysis of the evidence and testimony. Because there were no rules, jurors interrupted one another and this created a hostile environment. The character played by Henry Fonda was the voice of reason and would have been a more effective jury foreman. He made an insightful observation that prejudice affects the truth, and really what is the truth when so much of the case is seen through each juror’s own biases and life experiences?
It seemed there really were no rules of who spoke, only the rule of the one juror who governed when voting took place. The rules for speaking were counter productive, but only because I thought they delayed the outcome because everyone talked over each other, but they did get to the verdict eventually. Reasoning and evidence played a role but the point of the film was that when people have personal prejudices, they can cloud judgement and keep even reasonable doubt from entering their mind. It was interesting that most jurors changed their minds when juror 8 brought up a point that was personal to them. An example was the man with the marks on his face from glasses only changed his mind when he realized the woman probably didn’t have her glasses when she saw the murder, or when the last juror realized his own prejudice because the defendant reminded him of his son who he was estranged from. Very interesting how over time one by one the jurors found something they can relate to and then changed their minds, like the old man who was pretty sure the old man just wanted attention when talking to the police.
And lastly, emotion played a huge role in the discussion, especially when the jurors egos didn’t want to admit to the reasonable doubt because they wanted to defend their point. I guess their is a reason one should never make a decision when we’re angry.
The movie did a great job of showing how each person can have their own personal prejudice that can cloud their judgment, and the only way to really see past it is with the help of patient deliberation from others.
It seemed there really were no rules of who spoke, only the rule of the one juror who governed when voting took place. The rules for speaking were counter productive, but only because I thought they delayed the outcome because everyone talked over each other, but they did get to the verdict eventually. Reasoning and evidence played a role but the point of the film was that when people have personal prejudices, they can cloud judgement and keep even reasonable doubt from entering their mind. It was interesting that most jurors changed their minds when juror 8 brought up a point that was personal to them. An example was the man with the marks on his face from glasses only changed his mind when he realized the woman probably didn’t have her glasses when she saw the murder, or when the last juror realized his own prejudice because the defendant reminded him of his son who he was estranged from. Very interesting how over time one by one the jurors found something they can relate to and then changed their minds, like the old man who was pretty sure the old man just wanted attention when talking to the police.
And lastly, emotion played a huge role in the discussion, especially when the jurors egos didn’t want to admit to the reasonable doubt because they wanted to defend their point. I guess their is a reason one should never make a decision when we’re angry.
The movie did a great job of showing how each person can have their own personal prejudice that can cloud their judgment, and the only way to really see past it is with the help of patient deliberation from others.
I agree with megan that when the jurors claimed “facts for evidence”, they were not really the facts but the biased assumptions that each juror had towards the defendant. Every juror came in with their own biases and stereotypes and juror 8 simply helped each juror “see the light”.
The case looks, on the surface, cut and dried. But Juror number 8 (Henry Fonda), despite believing that the defendant is probably guilty, feels that the facts merit a cursory review before the jury hands in a guilty verdict. His insistence on a brief examination of the case seems to rub many on the jury the wrong way, as they continue to see the matter as open and shut.
Fascinatingly, as they examine the testimony and facts of the case, the experiences, personalities, limitations, and biases of the jurors weave in and out of the deliberation process, at times to its benefit and at times to its detriment.
Certain characters presented arguments based on different attributions that affected their first judgment:
Henry Fonda: Made more external attributions for the boy’s behavior. 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.
Ed Begley (the racist guy): Referred to the boy as a slum kid. He relayed the idea that there’s something about slum kids who belong to certain ethnic groups that makes them inherently rotten. These are internal attributions that, lead to more of a guilty verdict.
Lee J. Cobb (the angry guy): Also made more internal attributions for the boy’s behavior. He agreed with the slum kid idea, but also focused on the notion that kids today don’t have any respect or sense of morality.
There is also a use of schemas and stereotypes, obviously many of the jurors had stereotypes about kids who grow up in slums—and who belong to certain minority groups. Not only did these stereotypes influence the jurors’ tendency to make internal attributions for the boy’s behavior, but these stereotypes also led to biased interpretations of the evidence.
Hello,
I was wondering what the symbolism of the knife being left stuck in the table would be?
And how the 8th Juror looks back at it at the door when he’s about to leave…
It’d be so helpful if someone had an answer!!!