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? 6) What role did leadership play?
66 thoughts on “12 Angry Men”
Comments are closed.
Throughout the jury’s deliberation in 12 Angry Men, we see a jury in a hurry (no rhyme intended) to find an 18-year-old boy guilty of killing his father. In the beginning of the film, two main, but extremely different leaders emerged. These leaders played a major role in setting the tone during the deliberation. The first leader was juror #8, who was by the far the more composed and rational of the two. He was the only one who truly sought to talk about the decision and think logically rather than selfishly. If it weren’t for juror #8 and his dedication to breaking down the evidence piece by piece, I strongly believe that the jury would have found the defendant guilty. It was his reasoning and his ability to see through the presented evidence that truly helped slowly sway the decision of the men in the room. One by one, the jurors started to see the facts in a different light and ultimately voted not guilty. Then we have juror #3 who emerged as a different type of leader. He was rude, hotheaded, loud, stubborn and was overcome by emotion. In fact, emotion played a much larger role for juror #3 than for anyone else in the room. The other jurors only changed their decision when the evidence didn’t prove factual, but at the end we saw that juror #3’s personal strife with his son kept him from making a rational decision. In this case, emotion played a very negative part in the deliberation because he was blinded to any inconsistencies in the evidence presented in the courtroom. I think that the ultimately the jury made the right decision and this film provides an excellent example of how rhetoric can affect the decision making process.
What I find amazing is that you have captured all the phases that the jurors went through to get o the end result. I think that this is a realistic experience that they were having and it also shows how deliberating works in the real word. Not only are people going off facts but in face emotions play a large part in their passion. Another thing that can be observed was how calm the jury became the they started to think with reasoning versus how emotional they were based on the evidence. Also another thing to point out in perspectives was the jury not being able to pin point evidence they al heard during the trail. But there were all quick to make a 5 min deliberation about the murder charges of the young man.
Nicely done, Jacqui.
Agree that two leaders with two very different styles emerged , and the roles emotion and rational play in the deliberation.
Hey, Jacqui, you did an amazing job analyzing the leaders, reasoning and evidence, and emotions in this movie. I really liked reading how you pointed out the personalities of juror number 8 and juror number 3. I also highly agree if juror number 8 did not have the dedication and courage to break down every evidence and eyewitness. The boy would be convicted guilty right away without any deliberation. The movie does a great job of showing how everyone deserves the right to a full deliberation of a trial by jury and eloquence can affect the decision-making process.
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?
In the beginning of the process it seems that reasoning and evidence played two different roles because what looked like murder to 11 members of the jury appeared to be innocents to the 12th juror. The evidence that was provided was only juxtaposed to the stories of the witnesses and no other possibilities were thought of or mentioned. This is where reasoning became an important part of the proving the innocents of the 18 year old boy. Those who initially claimed to be basing their decision on facts had to understand a new perspective of reasoning to change their opinion and ultimately their vote. They were able to use their own life perspectives and rational reasoning to whole hearty believe the innocents of the 18 year old boy.
4) What role did emotion play in the discussion? Was it positive, negative, or both?
The roles of emotions were climatic in the discussion. You first see the immediate emotion of juror 12 , when the initiate the verbal vote. Although he is calm, it can be seen that his is unsettled with speaking out but also with no other juror members ready to reason the evidence. This was a positive emotion that played throughout the entire movie. The other emotions ranged from upset, certainty and unpathetic. These emotions were negative but needed in order to make the change into rational reasoning.
5) Do you think the demographic composition of the jury affected the why it discussed the case and the outcome it reached? How?
I, personally think that there is a strong possibly that the demographics of the jury did affect the outcome of the case. The movie was a reflection of the court in the 1950’s.Woman and Minorities were not considered in the court of law. Also, the young man on trial was white, poor, and abused. Some of the reasoning that changed the opinion of the some of the juror was their ability to relate with the young kid as others just needed a new lens to look at the evidence.
I agree that Davis had a huge role in facilitating discussion among all the other jurors who were quick to say that the accused male was guilty. Because he was adamant about deliberating, all the 12 jurors were able to use reasoning to come to a consensus.
Emotion did also play a key role. Davis had a positive attitude through most of the movie in terms of the accused person’s innocence. I agree that the conveying of negative emotions was necessary, as well as unavoidable. There was a life or death situation at hand, and emotions got the best of the jurors at times. I also agree that the negative emotions, though unpleasant, helped to facilitate discussion and decision-making.
You also made a good point about women and minorities not being included in the jury. I wonder if this was due to the fact that women in the 1950’s were deemed as being “too soft,” a statement that I do not believe in.
I agree with Bryttnee and Fran’s points, especially regarding women not being allowed to be a part of jury. I think if there were some women involved in the jury, then we would of saw more hands for “not guilty” in the beginning. One reason why we didn’t see much deliberation, emotion, or even reasoning in the beginning was because the demographic composition was pretty homogeneous. Many of the men did not personally (emotionally) connect to the boy in the very beginning. The man who once lived in the slum connected to the boy a little but was too shy to express it in the beginning. If we had some women in the jury then maybe we could of detected some motherly instincts that would of allowed them to question the case more. They would of questioned whether the eighteen year old boy really committed this murder. Furthermore, some of those men were egotistic and did not want to budge from their initial stance which was hard to work on because of the demographic structure.
I agree with the prior posts of Sharmin, Fran and Bryttnee on the importance of the demographic of the jury. All but one of the jury members (Juror #5 who admitted to growing up in a slum) seemed to be very disconnected from the struggles of the accused and therefore lacked empathy for him. If there were more jurors of similar socioeconomic status to the accused, I am certain the deliberations would have turned out differently. Many of the jurors had biases about people that grew up in the slums and therefore had a difficult time believing that the accused could possibly be innocent. Thankfully, juror #8 was a rational individual that was able to eliminate speculation and focus on the facts.
Agree with both the positive and negative emotions played in the deliberation. Also like to add Jury # 11 showed some very positive emotion that influenced the outcome of the deliberation.
The voting procedures that were used in the film to make decisions varied. Most of the men had somewhere to go and therefore decided they could stay for only an hour. They decided to raise their hands and vote whether the boy was guilty or not guilty. One man raised his hand for not guilty and the others thought the boy was guilty. This method is interesting, but flawed because one is not able to completely explain their thoughts and understanding of the case just by raising their hand. One is also under pressure if he is told to raise their hand in front of eleven other men. The second method of voting was even more interesting and less flawed because the men were told to have a ballot. By using this method, the men were able to cast their ballot without having others know what they voted for.
The rules for decision making were disorganized and almost all the men were shouting and disrespecting each other. Most of the men decided early on that the boy was guilty and therefore the rules of decision making were quick and ineffective. Most of the men believed the facts that were presented in court and didn’t quite think beyond the facts. Once the men decided to speak more and scrutinize all the facts without being bias, they realized that they were on the wrong track by thinking the boy was guilty. Also, some of the men that were quick and stubborn about their decision changed their mind once they looked deeper into the facts. Decision making should be thorough and long because people sometimes miss pertinent details. This allowed us to see that reasoning and evidence plays a huge role in the decision process.
Juror #8 was the only man who believed there was reasonable doubt from the very beginning. He knew there was more under the surface of the case. For example, all of the men thought the boy used the knife to stab his father. But this man walked around the boy’s neighborhood and found the same exact knife. This allowed another jury member to think that the boy may be innocent. Juror #8 also reenacted a scene because he believed the old man living next door to the boy couldn’t have walked to the door and saw the boy run down the stairs in 15 seconds. They timed how long it would take the old man who has an injured leg to walk to the door and see the boy. It would have taken the old man 41 seconds! The men discussed whether the woman eye-witness really saw the boy stab his father because her eyesight was in question. The oldest juror saw the woman have two marks on the side of her nose which showed that she wore glasses. This is evidence was overlooked but very pertinent to this case. Again, “facts” should not be the only basis if there is reasonable doubt.
Moreover, emotion played a huge role in the deliberation process. For example, the man who grew up in the slum voted that the boy was guilty in the beginning. But when some of the men started offending him and didn’t care that the boy was also from the slum, this man started to change his views. He could connect to this boy because he had a similar childhood. Another example is of the last man to vote for not guilty. This man thought the boy was guilty because he has a son who doesn’t have a healthy relationship with him. His decision making methods were different because he was emotionally invested in his decision. He wanted to believe the boy was guilty without any rationale because of his relationship with his son. Lastly, he cried in the very end and this further shows his emotional side. Emotion certainly played a negative yet positive role in the discussion.
As we saw, the demographic composition of the jury affected the way the case was discussed and the outcome because most of the men were white and particularly from middle-class to upper-class. This could be seen through their clothes, the way they were smoking in the courtroom, the way one man was reading a newspaper, and by the things they said about the boy growing up in a broken family. We could tell almost all of the men (except the guy from the slum) had a different upbringing then the boy and therefore their decision making methods, emotions, and reasoning was different in the beginning.
I agree that the voting method of raising hands pressured jurors into voting that the accused male was guilty. Ballots helped relieve this pressure by allowing the jurors to vote freely and anonymously.
The 12 men presented their ideas in a disorganized manner. They were certainly shouting over each other and cutting each other off. I agree that many were quick to jump to the guilty verdict, but thorough decision-making is important, especially in a matter of life or death. Furthermore, I agree that evidence and reasoning played a major role in the decision-making process. Following Davis’ arguments, the men reasoned through the play-by-play and went over every detail of evidence and testimonies.
You made a great point that emotions were both negative and positive throughout the deliberation. As you stated in your response, jurors brought in personal examples and life stories. These perspectives helped change and shape the jurors’ decisions.
Lastly, I also agree that the jurors’ mannerisms and condescending comments further demonstrated how race and class can play a role in jury discussions. A few jurors made assumptions about the accused male simply because of his background and upbringing. However, I do believe that once juror 5 stated that he was from the slums himself, the juror was able to somewhat move past their assumptions and analyze the case further.
Thank you for the comments. I want to double agree and mention that race and class plays such an important role in jury discussions and selection. I remember being selected to show up for jury duty. I was excited and nervous at the same time because I didn’t know if I was going to be selected to be a part of the jury. The lawyers briefly interviewed us but I could tell they were being very selective about who they wanted for the case. They dismissed me as soon as they heard my age, political science background, and race. The case involved a Bangladeshi taxi driver and I am Bangladeshi and have knowledge of Bangladeshi taxi drivers. This was interesting to me because my race clearly played a role in the jury selection. They chose the lady next to me who was white, older, and had a psychology background. I think it is important for the jury to have people from all background.
I agree with you that most of the Jurors already considered the boy guilty without even trying to discuss any other options. There was a huge amount of apathy in the beginning. Nobody was interested in the boy’s point of view. They were indifferent towards the evidence that would have helped the boy.However, I do not think we should only blame the Jurors. The defense attorney should have had done better job and investigated more. All the evidence that Juror #8 found were not very hard to discover. Imagine that all the evidences that Jurors found during the deliberation process were discovered earlier by the defense during the trial. Would all jurors be so indifferent? I don’t think so. There would still be Jurors as #3 and # 10 who would judge merely based on their personal emotions and prejudice, but the others would have been more reasonable.
I agree with Sharmin in the importance of the voting procedures. It makes me wonder if the voting results would have been the same (11-1),the first time, if there was a secret ballot rather than publicly voting. When juror #1 took the first vote, I counted only about half of the jury immediately raised their hand in agreement that the accused was guilty. The remaining jurors that ended up voting guilty the first time, seemed to look around hesitantly and then raise their hands. It seemed as if those jurors were not certain of the accused being guilty, but voted for his guilt anyways in response to those around them doing the same. The secret ballot changed the initial results and I believe that is what should have been used the entire time until a verdict was reached. The hostility could have also been prevented since no one would not have known the vote of each juror.
I completely agree with Sharmin that emotion and demographic composition was a huge part of the deliberation process. It’s ironic that jurors are picked based on their “unbiased” opinion because no one is unbiased. Everyone adds their background and emotions when it comes to making a decision and that’s what shapes their thoughts and what they bring to the table.
Hi Sharmin, I agree that man were in rush to get to their problems and whatever they had to do. They were not thinking about the young man, whether he was guilty or not. I don’t thing they even realized their power of having somebody’s life in their hands. For them it was just a duty they had to do the Jury duty, make quick decision, and run home. The man were disorganized, and even Forman did not have much say. it was as each man for himself. Juror #8, brought to the table reasonable doubt. Some of the man did not need much convincing to the guilty or not guilty side, they were just following what were the most votes. I think it is sad, the system is not working, if we have jurors like that, can we believe in fairness, and reasonable doubt?
Hi Sharmin,
I do agree with you views on the roles emotion played in the jury deliberation. The jurors having the same backgrounds with the defendants were able to connect emotional to the victim’s, susceptibility to biases and misconception! Having lived the victim’s experiences, they realize that he could just be a victim of circumstances. Consequently, because the boy was from the “slum” he could be branded a criminal and very few will disagree. On the other hand, just as you stated, others used that same emotion, to continue to depict him as a criminal. These show that personal situations and circumstances can play crucial roles in deliberations. These jurors’ emotions were transfused into this deliberations, for example, the juror with the “The son issue” had the conviction, the victim could be innocent, but instead he shifted his personal situations to this present case.
The film “12 Angry Men” begins with the jurors who are deciding the fate of an 18-year old boy charged with murdering his father, mostly entering deliberations with their minds already made up as to the guilt of the defendant. All but one have come into the deliberations having concluded that the evidence laid out by the prosecutor is sufficient for a guilty vote. Only one juror, juror #8, has some doubt and is the lone not-guilty vote at the onset.
The jury is composed of 12 white males, which was not unusual for the time period, but I can’t help but think that if the composition included other races and/or females, the deliberation might have gone differently. For instance, perhaps a mother on the jury would have been more prone to compassion and less quick to judgement.
In the beginning, the jury foreman has the leadership role, and calls for votes through a show of hands. As the discussion continues with juror #8 challenging the evidence and introducing new theories that debunk the witnesses’ claims and prosecution’s side, the voting goes to secret ballots then back to a show of hands and audible guilty/not-guilty votes. The foreman’s leadership is challenged by one juror, #3, who has displaced his personal disappointment and estrangement from his own son onto the defendant. The result is a violently emotional juror, who turns out to be the last not-guilty hold-out.
The speaking rules start off very orderly, with each juror stating their vote/ views in order of juror #, then this spirals out of control. As the evidence unravels, and more jurors begin to have reasonable doubt, other jurors realize they will not complete the deliberations quickly and be free to get on with their personal lives, and this creates animosity. There are also some jurors who are not as boisterous or outspoken, and they are bullied by those who are more imposing. We see rudeness and disrespect too, as when juror #8 was stating a viewpoint, others were playing tic-tac-toe and an elderly juror was yelled at and belittled. There is constant speaking out-of-turn, personal insults and we see how preconceptions, prejudice and other emotions have helped form many of their votes. One juror keeps referring to children from slums (like the defendant) as “trash” and saying “these people”.
While some jurors like juror #3, who became violently emotional through anger at his estranged son sought to take over the proceedings through being loud and imposing, others like juror #8 gained respect and a leadership role, through patience, thoughtful deductive reasoning and questioning of the evidence. In the end, this rational method managed to sway the entire jury, to have enough reasonable doubt to find the defendant not guilty.
I thought about the role of gender in the jury room. Being in an all men environment can lead to some aggressive expressions of disagreement. But I don’t feel like an all female jury would be more sympathetic and less quick to judge. For a lot of middle class women, a 18 year old killer from the slum is a threat to their idyllic life. One less slum boy would make the world a better place for the average housewife. Even the culture of the day, a mixed jury would have intimidated its female members into agreement.
Just an observation, but I think Norrisa’s point was about having a more diverse jury, not necessarily one made up of “only” females.
I agree with Norrisa that the composition of the jury and the time period definitely lent itself to the way the movie played out. There were no woman jurors which made the deliberation process different and the one female involved with the story; the woman witness; they dismissed. Had the same deliberation been done today, the whole process would have been different even if the end result would have been the same.
Hi Atara,
Although I do agree, with your observations on the fact that the jury’s lack of female composition, might have played a significant role in the deliberation. However, I believe the jury was very diverse and this played a major role in the final decisions. The jury was composed of elders, elites, immigrants, and members who grow up in the slum, similar to the victim. Who know, may be the verdict could have turned out differently, from the final verdict with female jurors.
I really liked how you pointed out the lack of diversity in the room. It would be interesting if there were women. I also like how you noticed the small details of the film about the juror who referred to children of the slums as ‘trash’ or ‘these people. Good Job!
Hi, Norrisa
Yes, it seems they had their minds made up, already, when they came to deliberation. I think that is ok, they heard all the testimonies in the court. I don’t think however that they should vote right away. In my opinion they should have some deliberation and going over facts and testimonies. Then cast the vote. That is what the Juror # 8, did. He went one by one facts, and testimonies, and showed the rest that there is reasonable doubt, and all of them should think more about whether the boy killed the father or not.
The jurors used a combination of voting procedures during the film, such as raising their hands and using anonymous ballots. Initially, they completed a preliminary vote by raising their hands. After much debate about the case, anonymous ballots demonstrated that some of the jurors were slowly changing their minds. Anonymous ballots relieved pressure for the jurors, as they could make decisions without judgment or embarrassment. The major over-arching rule for the decision making process was that the verdict had to be a unanimous decision among all jurors, which proved to be problematic. However, if such a rule was not implemented, a majority vote would have likely led to a death sentence for the accused male within minutes of the deliberation. With this overarching rule, the jurors were forced to debate the case until they reached a 12-0 outcome.
Reasoning and evidence played a key role in the decision-making process, primarily as facilitators of numerous heated discussions. Over the course of the film, several pieces of evidence were reviewed. The jurors debated over the testimonies of the witnesses, the knife found on the scene, the history of the accused male and his father’s relationship, and re-enacted what could have happened that night. The jurors, especially Davis, reasoned why deliberation is crucial in this life or death matter. He stressed that that such an important decision should not be rushed. However, other jurors who claimed their decisions were based on “facts” were not truly committed to the rational process. In particular, Juror 3, who was estranged from his son, instantly jumped to the conclusion that the accused male was guilty and should have paid for his crime due to the “facts.” Juror 3 resisted attempts to discuss the case any further.
Indeed, the demographic composition of the jury affected the discussion of the case and the outcome reached. The jury appeared to consist mostly of middle-class, white males. Many of the jurors made assumptions that the accused male was guilty, merely due to the fact that he was an immigrant from the slums. In fact, Juror 7 even made an anti-immigrant speech during the deliberation. Meanwhile, Jurors 4 and 10 essentially classified people living in slums as criminals. However, Juror 5 proudly declared that he was raised in a slum, which served as a turning point in the conversation. The jurors the began to analyze inconsistencies with the case rather than further fixate on the accused male’s background.
Francielle, while I did not comment about the demographics of the jury in my own blog post, I find it a particularly interesting piece of the film as you indicated in your last paragraph. In addition to the jurors’ social class, I also wonder what the deliberation would have looked like if there were women on the jury. Considering the fact that the defendant was being accused of murdering his father, perhaps this drew a personal connection for some of the men who may also be fathers (other than the juror whose story was made clear, of course). Additionally, would a jury consisting of women have been so quick to give a death sentence to an 18 year-old as the 12 men were? Would a jury of women in this time period have been as likely to speak out of order and cause chaos in the jury room?
Francielle, like Yael, I also did not make mention of the demographics of the jury as my post was focused on how leadership affected the emotional make up of the room. However, throughout the film, I constantly wondered 1. how there weren’t any women selected on the jury 2. how different would the deliberation have been if there were women and minorities in the room. The make up of the jury was a reflection of society in 1957, the year the movie came out. Many of the men were white working or upper class or what other’s would call “normal” in the 1950’s. This is yet another sad reflection of America’s values in 1957. Interestingly enough, the film was remade 40 years later in 1997 with a much more diverse jury. I would love to watch the second film to compare.
Fran, I believe that you have made a good point by stating all the ways that the jury interacted when having to vote. Voting is a different way to deliberate and voting itself comes in many forms. Throughout the movie , the voting changed for different reasons, I wonder if that is something that we should look further into. Also, from a personal perspective, why do we feel the need to change our voting interaction when dealing with groups such as the jury did.
I have seen the film “12 Angry Men” before, so the plot was by no means a surprise. However it was great to receive another opportunity to analyze it, especially since it is a perfect depiction of group discussion (argument).
Upon watching the film, I noticed something instantly. Juror #1 took the responsibility to establish order among the men. Examples of this included arranging the table seating, setting the speaking rules, and calling for votes. Important to note is that although he took upon himself to create order, he is not a leader. Evident later in the film, he slowly loses his control of the group and even his patience once they deviate from his rules. Not to say the jurors did not respect him, but rather his presence was not as significant in comparison to others. His intention was purely to create harmony. It is because of this I label him as a neutral organizer.
As for the governing procedures, Juror #1 created a system after the first vote (11-1). The system was that each individual have a turn around the table to speak their opinions and provide an explanation for their decision of guilty or not guilty. The speaking rules was that each person receive full attention and that no other juror interrupt and wait for his turn. After everyone is done speaking, a new vote will be taken. Unfortunately apparent early in the film, this system is forgotten. The governing procedures become less rigid and spontaneous. Certain jurors speak as they please, and the voting procedures switch constantly from hand-ups, to secret written ballot, and then simply to only those who vote not guilty. Ironically it is this change that led to progress and ultimately led to the outcome of 12-0 in favor of not guilty.
When the film begins, there isn’t much reasoning among the group. Their decisions were not made rationally but by intuition or personal reasons. This is first demonstrated by Juror #2 when he states “I don’t know, I just feel that he is guilty.” Other examples include Juror #3 (relationship problems with his son), Juror #7 (wants to hurry to a baseball game), and Juror #10 (ignorance and prejudice). The only two who utilize logic is Juror #4 and Juror #8. Juror #8 especially exemplifies proper reasoning. He questions every piece of evidence from the knife to the testimonies, and he offers a counter-argument for each one. He even uses the scientific method and conducts his own experiment for the old man’s testimony. It is only after he speaks, reasoning begins among the group. Juror #11 is the first to ask questions and attempt to think rationally.
Emotion played a big role in the film. It can be argued that dictated the film. From the the very start, it was obvious to see that those who were the most “excitable” (Juror #2 and Juror #10) were more influential and received the most attention. While others, such as Juror #1, who displayed little to no emotion received less attention from the group. Emotion also plays large part in their decision-making. Juror #2 and Juror #10 based their initial decision from their personal hatred. Even their vote changes were influenced by emotion. For example, Juror #9 (the first follower) was touched by Juror #8’s courage to go against the group. And Juror #5 changed his vote because he was tired of the insults against children in the slums.
After watching this film, I learn communication is fluid and therefore rules should be somewhat flexible in order to establish effective communication. Although order is necessary, I feel that it should serve as mostly a starting point to a discussion. Moreover it is important to realize emotion is and will always play a significant role in the decision-making process. It is what carries the conversation and creates conflict. And conflict is the first step to progress.
Jonathan, this was my first time watching the film but I definitely want to watch it again because I think I will pick up so much more the second time!
Despite my own blog post where I refer to Juror #1 as the “lead” juror, I agree with your evaluation of considering him to be a “neutral organizer.” He wasn’t exactly neutral because he voted publicly with the rest of the jury and it was clear that he believed the defendant was guilty. However, it did not seem like this influenced the way he conducted the discussion and votes. He still gave those who believed the defendant was innocent their time to speak and facilitated several votes throughout the day. Leaders are generally viewed as people with a vision who know how to motivate and encourage others to believe in their ideology and implement it. As you have pointed out, Juror #1 does not exhibit these qualities. Thank you for making me think about this character in a much different light!
I agree with you both regarding the “neutral organizer”. I kept thinking of him as the moderator as I was watching the movie. To be honest, I was confused about his role in the very beginning. I didn’t know if he was even a part of the jury because he was put together, did not smoke like the rest, and rarely commented anything that would of influenced the rest. He tried to stop fights but did not enforce strict rules that would of disallowed deliberation to take place. I think his role was extremely important because even though he was put together, he did not agree with Davis in the beginning. He was in the last batch to agree that there is reasonable doubt and that the boy may be innocent. I did not quite see him as a leader but I thought he did a good job because he allowed everyone to speak (regardless of his reasoning and stance).
Juror #1 is usually the presiding Juror. He/she are appointed by the judge before the trial or by the other jurors during the deliberation.I do not think one can chose to be a leading juror without the agreement of others. The presiding juror has sever
Juror # 1 is usually the presiding Juror. He/she are appointed by the judge before the trial or during the deliberation by other members of jury.(This is how I remember it from the process of jury selection). Juror#1 is in charge of several duties during the deliberation process.He/she has to make sure that every member of Jury is present during the discussions and voting. For example when Juror #9 was in the restroom, Juror #1 didn’t allow others to proceed until all 12 jurors were around the table.The presiding Juror is also communicating with court officer and judge if additional information or materials are needed for the deliberation.I agree with Jonathan that he was a “neutral organizer”.To me he was able to came up with ideas to make that final verdict was done easily. However, he wasn’t a good leader.He wasn’t able to front the resistance and aggression thus he gave up.I think Juror # 8 was the leader in this case. As I mentioned in my own post my opinion is not based on the fact that everyone else was convinced in the end. It is just that Juror#8 was never emotional and was only talking with the help of evidence and rational reasoning.
Jonathan, this was also my second time watching the film. I had to watch it in undergrad for a communications class, but I really didn’t remember it too well. I definitely agree with you. Personal emotion plays a huge role in this film. Those who were more emotional, seemed to get more camera time and dominated the conversation (at first). However, I do also believe that logical reasoning played some emotion in the film, as well. The jury was so fixated on all of the facts presented in the court, that they were slightly blinded when it came to seeing past those facts. Juror #8, who was extremely logical and extremely composed throughout the film, really did a fantastic job of helping to convey the evidence and break down the pieces for the rest of the jurors. If it weren’t for juror #8’s fantastic oration skills and patience, I am not quite sure the jury would have come to the decision that they did. While the men were surely overcome by emotion, I think at the same time they were very rigid men and needed to see the evidence presented in a different way to be totally convinced.
Hi Jonathan, I like your point about communication being fluid as the communication process should be open-ended and opinions change as new material is introduced. As part of the Enlightened Understanding component deliberation involves reflecting on values and points of views to arrive at an informed decision.
Jonathan, you bring up a distinct and good point about juror number one. He did have leadership attributes and leadership skills but if you do see it at the angle you pointed out, I can see why you’d rather classify him as a ‘neutral organizer’. Good Job!
In 12 Angry Men, one of the jurors quickly emerges as the leader of the group. It becomes clear when he himself sits at the head of the table. At first, when it becomes clear that there is one juror who disagreed with the rest, the leader allowed him to speak first and others to respond. Subsequently, he had all of the jurors go around the room and allow them free range to speak to the group. While some men spoke out of turn and responded passionately when others spoke, going around in a circle was certainly more orderly and productive. Most importantly, this method allows every man in the room an opportunity to have his space to speak whereas a lack of order would exclude some of the quieter characters.
At the very beginning, the group decides to do a preliminary vote in the hopes that discussion could be skipped. However, only one juror votes “not guilty.” The next vote is a secret ballot, which prevents peer pressure from impacting the juror’s votes. The fourth vote consists of the lead juror calling each man individually for his vote. While peer pressure could still impact this vote, each juror could think more carefully about his verbal vote rather than a simple raise of the hand.
Throughout the film, it is revealed that one of the juror’s has a poor relationship with his son. Towards the end of the film, another juror accuses him of being a “sadist” for wanting to give the death sentence to the defendant. Eventually he breaks down and confesses that he believes the defendant is not guilty. It becomes evident that his desire to give the death sentence to the defendant is a result of his strong emotions towards his son rather than logic.
Hi Yael!
Great points all around. Your last point really struck a chord with me. I can’t help but think of all the real-world cases where the defendant’s life is on the line and, due to myriad previous or current life circumstances, a juror has a visceral tendency towards the death penalty.
Any individual who has grown up in this country has been exposed to specific notions of certain groups of people and ostensibly innate behavior characteristic of that group. One apparent example in today’s discourse is the relationship between racial oppression and the media’s portrayal of black males in cases of police killings. Victims including Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were, by all accounts, normal teenagers, merely trying to get by in wholly segregated places. But throughout their trials, journalists were painting them as imposing adults, digging into their abbreviated pasts to find any shred of misconduct that just might implicate them as “criminals” or, more derogatorily, “thugs.” Such coded terminology is an implicit method of imbuing certain stereotypes into the minds of those exposed to the media, which then shapes our perceptions of those groups of people (typically, the historically marginalized).
Considering this example, the “sadistic” desire for justice-by-death may not even be a conscious decision. Juror #8 understood the case through the scope of social conditioning, as he made the connection between the boy’s living conditions and the rationale for wanting to commit such a crime in the first place. In a society riddled with social and economic inequities, it would only be intuitive for those unfortunate individuals steeped in poverty to possess a worldview that entails a sense of victimhood or disdain towards those in a position of privilege. Understanding the “sadist” juror’s attitudes through this lens of social construction almost (almost) renders his rationale, well, somewhat logical.
Thanks for the insightful thoughts, Yael!
Hi Yael,
Interesting observations if i can say myself! Commenting on your first point, I agree that the first juror positioned himself as the leading juror (although I believe this was a more self-imposed duty rather than reached by consensus). Expanding on this, it is worthy of noting that there were two types of leaders – the self-proclaimed leader and the juror that was the first to rule the boy as not guilty. Here we see how many times leaders can be simply a figure lider (has no real leadership qualities other than simple organization, or even less than that). On the other hand the juror who believed the boy was not guilty and ultimately convinced all other jurors of this decision. This is the type of leader that can influence others through the true power of evidence, reliability, and convincing arguments. So to the question of what type of leadership was noted in the film, I would say there were two types – the true and fake (figure only) leader.
The audience is not introduced to the details of the trial. It is only known that the defendant is an eighteen years old boy who stubbed his father to death. Jury members are sent to the deliberation room for the final verdict.
During different types of trials lawyers are entitles to tell their opinion to jury members in the end, and jury decides to accept or deny .If carefully observed the jury discussions one can easily identify that the defense attorney did not try his/her best to prove the boy’s innocence. It is true that the defense does not have to prove anything and it is the prosecutor who has to prove that the defendant is guilty. However, it’s hardly believable that defense attorney who is worried about a case will allow a prosecutor to convince jury. During the deliberation jury members started to slowly identify evidence and testimonies that the defense attorney never even tried to bring up in a court room. This shows that nearly everybody who was involved in this trial was showing some type of apathy towards the defendant. The fact that Juror #8 was able to find an identical knife which was claimed as unique, shows that defense did not try hard on this case. The jury members also show some type of indifference towards the defendant when they decide to quickly vote and leave the courtroom. Other types of emotions that was involved in this case were aggression, hatred, boredom and fear. All these could have led the boy to be executed. However, interest, hope and confidence of the Juror #8 and the others allowed some type of discussion which led to the boy’s freedom.(Question #4)
Juror # 1 was the presiding juror, who was assigned either by the judge before the trial or by jury members during the deliberations. If I am not mistaking Jurors cannot appoint themselves as presiding Jurors without the agreement of others. They are assigned several responsibilities prior the deliberation. The leading Juror must ensure the presence of all the other jurors before the deliberation starts. As we noticed Juror #1 didn’t allow discussion to start until Juror # 9 came out of the restroom. He/She are also in charge of leading the deliberations in an organized manner. Everything that other Jurors ask is notified through the help of the leading Juror. In this case Juror # 1 took is responsibilities very seriously. He started identifying strategies that would have helped to come up with verdict easily. His opinion wasn’t mentioned much in the deliberation process. He wasn’t able to prove himself as a strong leader because the disagreements and emotions created a complete chaos in the room. To me Juror #8 was the leader of deliberation. My opinion is not based on the fact that he was able to convince everyone that the boy was not guilty. It is just the way he presented himself. We never saw him angry or aggressive. He made all his points clear to everyone with evidence and reasoning.(Question #6)
All the jurors are white men who were somehow successful in their lives. It’s true that they represented different social levels, however; they all were depicted at least to be within middle class and higher. Meanwhile, the defendant was a young boy from a poor neighborhood, which was constantly identified as “slums”. The demographic difference played a major role in decision making .For example, Juror # 10 was constantly refereeing to a boy as “one of them”. This expression showed that he was not judging the boy based on the evidence but his decisions were solely based on his prejudice nature. In contrast the Juror #5 was once a member of so called “slums” and was able to identify the problems that the young boy could have encountered. He later on started to use his life experience lessons in order to prove the innocence of the young man.(Question # 5)
Twelve Angry Men was an incredible movie that I would recommend to all. I gained insight about the process of group decision making and communication from this movie. 12 jurors from diverse backgrounds filed into a small room, and were expected to vote whether the defendant, who was accused of killing his father, was guilty or not. At first, the jurors jumped into false agreement and assumed that the defendant was guilty even if they did not fully know why. However, this changed after the twelve men sat down to vote. All jurors voted “guilty” except for Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) who voted “not guilty”. This forced the group to further analyze the case and discuss the facts and evidence of the case in depth. They slowly began to allow discussion of opposing views which allowed them to make a decision in a thorough and thoughtful manner.
It is interesting to analyze the various voting procedures that were used throughout the movie and to discover how it affected the outcome of the votes. The initial vote was taken publicly, by raise of hands. During this vote, some of the jurors who voted guilty later expressed their lack of confidence whether the boy was really guilty or not. These jurors simply looked around the room and watched others make their decisions and voted based on that. In reality, their vote was a reflection of someone else’s opinion rather than their own. An example of this is Juror#3 (Jack Klugman). At first Jack didn’t say much and he seemed to be unsure of his decision. In fact he grew up as a slum kid and that is probably why he had his doubts. However, he initially conformed to the majority due to pressure. Another example of this is the Juror #9 (Joseph Sweeney). Initially, he conformed in the public vote, but then he changed his mind when it was a private vote. It is clear that there was strong pressure to conform to the majority with this initial method of voting publicly. Once the ballot was secret and anonymous, some of the jurors did not comply and the votes became more accurate; reflecting the opinion of each juror as an individual.
Emotion played a significant factor in the deliberation process. One juror in particular, Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb), had a bad relationship with his son, and he was preoccupied with different thoughts throughout the case. Since he was dominated by these emotions, he had an unconscious desire to punish his son. Therefore, he convicted the defendant who is a similar age to his son. However once he recognized that he misdirected his frustration with his son towards the accused, he changed his vote to “not guilty”. Henry Fonda on the other hand, refused to let emotions affect the case. He brought no personal agenda to the discussions and was only interested in guaranteeing there is no failure of justice.
Hi Atara, I take your point of the emotion expressed by Juror #3 since he seemed to be projecting his feeling for his son onto the accused. His feelings for his son did indeed affect his perception of the accused and his anger clouded his judgement. This is a good example of how pre-conceived notions and pre-judgements can affect the decision-making process.
Hi Atara,
I like how you pointed out Juror #3’s “realization”. When I first watched the film, I was surprised to see that the reasoning for his hostility toward the defendant was rooted from his relationship with his son. The second time around, it was fun to noticed that Juror 3 mentions his son early in the film. I am not whether it was his first line of the film, but it was definitely foreshadowing. Anyways I find your statement “he had an unconscious desire to punish his son” as enlightening. I could’ve find a more perfect way to describe what happened in the film. I previously assumed that Juror #3 was aware that he was taking his frustration on the defendant. But now it seems more plausible that Juror #3 was so blind by his emotions. It wasn’t until he caught himself rambling about his son, he was able to reason.
Hi Atara,
I agree with you that emotion had a significant part of the deliberation process in this movie. I myself talked about how the third juror mentions how he had a bad relationship with his son and because of this he was taking his frustration out on this verdict. It was indeed almost as if he wanted to convict the defendant as if punishing his own son. You are right that this could even be because of their similarities in age. I feel that you made clear and accurate points.
-Dianna
1. In the film “12 Angry Men” we see 12 male members of the jury all assembled in the jury room to decide on the guilt of the accused. The procedures used to govern who spoke were decided by the group itself, as one person suggested that they do a round table discussion with each person sharing the reason for their position. The Foreman guided the discussion and suggested that the voting be done by ballot, and this voting sparked the discussion.
Were the rules for speaking productive or counter-productive?
The rules of speaking were mostly productive, as each person was allowed to share their opinion individually in the round table discussion. However, there were many interruptions and outburst which were rather counter-productive to the deliberation process. As we saw, the frustrations and anger of some jurors directed towards other jurors with differing opinions. In the end the speaking rules were productive, as through the emotions and sharing their differences of opinion, they were able to hear each person’s perspective, reflect on it and ultimately arrive at a unanimous decision.
2. The role of reasoning and evidence in the decision process was evident as we saw the members of the jury being challenged by one juror to reason the facts of the case based on evidence. Initially the 12-member jury found the accused guilty as charged. It was only as one member of the jury challenged that decision and insisted that the evidence be reviewed based on the facts presented, did they reason the facts and examine the evidence carefully. The jury then proceeded to review the evidence and reason the facts of the case and reflect on the findings to arrive at a decision based on reasoned evidence.
Those who claimed to be basing their decision on “facts” were not always the most committed to the rational process. Those individuals who based their decisions on the “facts” were the first ones to find the defendant guilty based on the surface facts provided. However, upon closer examination of the evidence, these same individuals were not quite committed to reflect on the evidence as part of the rational process, although the initial evidence presented was inconclusive.
3) Emotion played a large part in the discussion, as many members of the jury were quite emotional and expressed anger, frustration, disgust, sadness and empathy. We saw members of the jury become quite emotional during the discussion and voiced their opinions with strong emotions. I believe the emotion persuaded some members of the jury to consider the opinions of those with strong emotions, and caused them to pause and consider the opinions of others. The use of emotion is both positive and negative, in that too many emotional outbursts proved disruptive and counter-productive as it interrupted the deliberations and caused the jury proceedings to stall. On the other hand, emotions were positively used, in that it caused the other members of the jury to pause and consider the views of the others and reflect on other perspectives, and perhaps change their opinions based on new information provided.
4) Leadership played a role in the deliberations, as the foreman was the person who decided on the rules for voting and provided the leadership to guide the jury to reach the decision. The foreman was able to maintain order as proceedings threatened to go awry and also guided the format of the deliberations and voting. Members of the jury also assumed leadership roles during the deliberations, for example the one juror who voted against the initial “guilty” judgement was able to assume a leadership role and challenge the jury to examine the evidence and reason the findings more carefully. Due to the position he took, the jury reconsidered the evidence more carefully and were able to change their position to a unanimous “not guilty.”
Hi Cicely! I agree that emotion was a huge part of the deliberation. It also seemed to me that the men who displayed the most negative emotions-who got the most upset and angry-actually did more harm than good to their arguments. For example, when the juror with the damaged relationship with his son kept getting angry and throwing tantrums, his extreme display of emotion diminished his credibility to the point where other jurors did not want to be associated with his arguments.
I agree with Caroline, it seems that more anger and negative outbursts tended to isolate other jurors and tended to be counter productive. It also seemed that those who were doing the most yelling were unsurprisingly doing the least amount of listening. In fact, one of the most powerful and persuasive moments in the film was completely nonverbal. The majority of the jury made it clear that they would not stand for the racially intolerant remarks made by one of the jurors by getting up and facing the wall when he was spouting hateful remarks.
In “12 Angry Men”, eleven out of twelve of the jurors were immediately willing to sentence a young man to death upon deliberation. A few jurors who positioned themselves as authoritative steered the room to make an immediate judgement of guilty. The issue was presented as matter of fact on the basis that a man would not be on trial if he was not guilty. This issue was exacerbated by other issues as well, including lack of diversity and the peer pressure associated with an open vote. All of these factors created an environment that lent itself to jurors not feeling comfortable or safe to go against the group decision.
In contrast to the dominating presence of jurors such as Juror 1 and Juror 10 sits Juror 8. Juror 8 was not intimidating nor domineering, he did not scream over the other jurors with the evidence that he had collected and noticed through the trial. Instead he practiced the patience that is required to truly change people’s minds. Juror 8 did not present his information or opinions as the only answer. Instead, he listed to his fellow jurors. He was open to others and as a result, fellow jurors slowly became more open to hearing evidence proving the defendant’s innocence. As he presented his information, Juror 8 did not present the defendant’s innocence as fact, but instead as a tool for opening the minds of his fellow jurors to the possibility that they were sending an innocent man to die.
Juror 8 also began to create a safe space for his fellow jurors to express an opinion that was different from his peers by casting an anonymous vote. The initial blind ballot opened up the jury to begin to exercise an opinion that went against the majority.
In the end, the leadership of Juror 8 was successful because it was not a heavy handed struggle to gain power. Instead, Juror 8 went against the popular opinion to uphold the constitutional right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
I completely agree with you about the leadership skills that juror 8 used to get his point across. He understood that patience and composure were key in being heard and understood. The use of the blind ballot was excellent and allowed people to express how they really felt. Even though only juror 9 decided to vote not guilty silently, he eventually spoke up and claimed his vote. I think this propelled others to feel like they weren’t alone in their beliefs and speak up as well. Slowly more jurors start thinking of the case more rationally than they had before.
I feel Juror 8 had a unique charisma that drew in his followers. He was always calm and respectful. That alone is enough to get someone to listen. He didn’t have to bully his way to seize power as you mentioned. Instead, he allowed power to come to him. I don’t think he set out to be a leader or take control, I believe he was genuinely driven by a desire to do what is right.
Hi Kim,
I feel your final statement represents how Juror 8 emerged into leadership. Going against popular opinion is difficult enough, but Juror #8 stood alone and kept his cool even under the overwhelming pressure from the group. This I believe however only helped him stand out. Similar to what Rozaan mentioned, I think charisma is what allowed him to obtain followers. And a person is only a leader if he/she has followers.
Hi Kim,
I agree with you on the statement that juror 8 did not present the defendant’s innocence as a fact but instead as a tool for opening the minds of his fellow jurors to the possibility that they were sending an innocent boy to die. I also agree with how he created a safe space for all 12 of the men to deliberate and express how they truly feel. It is an important aspect for a strong leader to be able to do. Juror 8 turned out to be a strong leader as you mentioned he did in fact uphold the constitutional right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
-Dianna
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?
Initially, superficial evidence is taken for face value. A man is dead from a stab wound and his son had recently purchased the knife that killed the man, his father. To connect the boy to the murder is not a far stretch. The juror used what was presented for them without room for assumptions. The movie also highlights the often biased nature of what individuals consider as “facts”. Juror 3 is so fully convinced that his biases are true facts, he is in a state of rage almost the entire time. How can an enraged person be rational? Depending on who you ask, his rage can be seen as temporary insanity or deep passion.
4) What role did emotion play in the discussion. Was it positive, negative, or both?
When challenged to think deeper at the situation, some jurors pulled their own personal experiences into consideration. Juror 5 reveals that he is from a slum and not everyone there is evil. Juror 9 who is elderly , challenges the testimony of the elderly witness. Juror 3 mentions the disappointment he feels for his own son, which he appears to project on the 18 year old on trial. The addition of emotion causes a swing in the votes for some jurors.
5) Do you think the demographic composition of the jury affected the why it discussed the case and the outcome it reached? How?
The jury was composed of middle aged white males, the standard of the time. Had the demographic included women or other ethnic groups the outcome may not have been affected. I think in this case, it would be a matter of who was on trial that would sway votes.
Hi Rozaan!
I really dig your last point about the jury’s composition, which I initially wanted to include in my own post. Clearly, the composition is the most striking detail of the jury, considering – well – they’re all old white men!! I also wondered about their socioeconomic status, as most seemed to possess a relative degree of wealth (this is to say nothing of their inherent privilege as white people).
I totally agree with you that the white-washed jury, at least in the beginning of the deliberation, had an impact on the verdict. Of course, that isn’t to say privileged white men can’t attempt to empathize with the defendant, as demonstrated by the admirable Davis.
Still, I can’t help but think of recent cases of police killings of unarmed black folk. Some media outlets lamented the jury process as a whole, pointing specifically to the prosecuting attorney and their disproportionate amount of power when it came to influencing the jury itself and their following decisions (not to mention, evidence that revealed the prosecutor’s close ties with the Ferguson police department in the case of the Mike Brown shooting). I wonder, then, to what extent does the jury’s composition matter in the shadow of the prosecuting attorney’s interests?
Insightful post, Rozaan!
Hi Rozaan,
I strongly agree with your considerations in regards to the demographic composition and I also agree with Jamie! The jury composition was a flat out slap in the face for the judicial system (or at least our current system – which still gets robbed of its true definition of justice. How can a jury be not biased, especially when there is a disconnect with age and race. Although the boy being accused of murder was white, we had had no reason to believe that there were decisions fueled by socio-economic status.
I also like how you mentioned that the emotional card was played when the juror was offended after others talked negatively about those who grew up in the slum (I had this in my notes and wanted to include in my post but forgot). I believe this specific moment and the end where the more enraged juror broke down into tears can show how deliberation processes are directly related with our emotions and the predispositions we are exposed to when echoing our ideas. Can we remove emotion from decision making processes? I think not. We can only reduce the degree to which emotion plays an influence, but in its entirety, emotion will always be present.
Hi, Rozaan. I agree juror 3 highly believes that his biases are the truth and nothing else. He has this belief with the evidence and eyewitness testimonies as well. He believes that it cannot be wrong but facts are facts. In reality, a person filled with this much rage and bias beliefs will not be allowed on a jury. I like how you pointed out the various emotions of some of the jurors. However, do you think those jurors emotions were positive or negative? I do agree with you that if there were women on the trial it might not have been affected. I believe that if there were some minorities on the jury maybe there might be a different outcome. Since there are a lot of minorities during that time facing issues in America, they can maybe understand a kid from the slums not having a full deliberation jury for his trial. Their emotions for injustice can bring a positive light to the jury, but there is an immigrant and someone from the slums in the jury, they did select guilty at first. And so, it is not an accurate prediction I have on that.
Pulling from their own experiences reminded me of the Gastil reading. He referenced William Gamson’s Talking Politics. This was an effective way for the jury to broaden there available information, be it the perspective of the elderly man or the juror with first-hand knowledge of knife fights.
What procedures were used in the film to govern who spoke? Were the rules for speaking productive or counter productive?
From the start of the jury deliberation in 12 Angry Men, it is apparent that it will be chaotic. There were no procedures established to determine who spoke, which led to many arguments. Many of the jurors oftentimes cut one another off or spoke loud and aggressively in order to be heard. Others showed little interest in the deliberation, repeatedly getting off topic and discussing sporting events and their careers instead. The lack of rules established ended up being counter productive to the deliberation, which resulted in hostility, derogatory terms and even the threat of violence towards one another.
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?
After 11 out of the 12 jurors voted for a guilty verdict, the majority believe it is their duty to convince juror #8 that the accused is guilty and provide minimal evidence and reasoning while doing so. Juror #2 stated that it was hard for him to put into words, but he believed the accused was guilty and no one had proved otherwise. Juror #3 believed that based on the facts of the case the accused was guilty and provided the old man’s testimony as his evidence. However, juror #3 refuses to see any flaws in the testimony of the old man, i.e, the fact that he never saw the boy commit the crime and only heard the murder. Juror #4 and juror #10 are certain the accused is guilty based on the testimony of the woman who allegedly saw the boy commit the murder. However, neither questions the validity of her testimony despite her claiming she saw the accused commit the murder while a train was passing by at the time. As juror #8 breaks down her testimony, we later find out that she could not have been certain the accused committed the crime based on the discrepancies in her time frames and that she probably did not have her glasses on when she witnessed the murder. As juror #8 continues to analyze the old man and woman’s testimony, it becomes evident that the “facts” of the case are quite flawed.
What role did emotion play in the discussion. Was it positive, negative, or both?
Emotion played a very big role in the discussion, particularly with juror #3 and #10. Throughout the entire deliberation juror #3 is very disrespectful and hot- headed in his attempts to prove that the accused is guilty. We later find out that his harboring resentment towards his son is the reason he is so adamant about convincing the jury that the accused killed his father. Juror #10 also expresses his personal feelings in the deliberation stating that “these people” are born liars and that “they” are violent by nature and therefore refuses to believe the accused is innocent. These emotions had a negative impact on the deliberation and could have resulted in the accused being executed because of these emotions, rather than the facts of the case.
The jury used the group speaking rules of a democratic group. This was demonstrated at the beginning by the foreman leading the deliberations and giving every juror the right to express their sides with a vote and the chance in taking turns to speak. The foreman acted as the leader and directed the speaking by deciding to take an initial jury verdict vote. The jury quickly divided, forming a “guilty” versus “not-guilty” factions with some of the outspoken jurors taking the positions of unofficial faction leaders and dominating the speaking. The jurors, often, the leaders of the “guilty” faction frequently, didn’t comply with the speaking rules. This faction mostly dominated the deliberations, frequently swaying the discussion to issues not relevant to the evidences and facts of the case. The foreman and the leader of the “not-guilty” faction generally had the difficult task of bringing the deliberations back to legally relevant issues relating to the case, such as evidences requisitions, analysis of evidence, witness, and references to the judge’s instructions. The decision-making rules initially tended towards a “verdict-driven” jury. Since the deliberation started with the foreman calling for the initial count of the individual jury verdict decision, the deliberation can be classified as having a verdict-driven decision making rule. These verdict-driven rules lead to an early initial majority for the “guilty” faction. Although, the conviction and persuasiveness of the “lone juror” ultimately had the ability to lead the deliberations back to an “evidence-driven jury” that eventually lead to the non-guilty verdict. Also, reasoning and evidence played a major role in both the initial and final jury verdicts. The jury did not get the whole picture of the evidences relating to the case. In addition, evidences were piecemealed and fragmented, for example, the persecutor presented a knife, which did not have the defendant fingerprints, in addition to jury being lead to believe, that there was no similar knife in existence. Each juror relied on the facts as presented by the witnesses, depending on their personal perceptions, reasoning abilities or biases. The group saw the “lone juror” who advocated for an evidence-driven decision as a non-conformist. The emotion and reasoning of the jury was ultimately swayed from guilty to not guilty, when they became “enlightened” due to the conviction and persuasiveness of the “lone juror.” Finally, every juror was able to reason and make their own enlightened decisions based on a clear understanding of both sides of the case.
This jury displayed intense emotional responses, as a group and individually as expected of any diverse group. Each juror individually had their own conviction as to which verdict they supported. Although, some jurors tried hiding behind other facades, including outside commitments such as, presenting a “football game” as the reason they want a quick verdict, instead of facing the fact that they didn’t have enough evidences. The “guilty” faction’s members mostly based their emotions on anger towards the defendant’s societal class and family background, based on their sentiments, moods, passions, personal and past experiences. The “not-guilty” faction mostly used logical reasoning and rational decision making in controlling their emotions and preventing it from clouding their judgment in examining the “facts” and evidences. The jury intense emotions generally had positive effects, on the case outcome. The jury demographics/composition played a large part in the final verdict. The jury, though, outwardly composed of all white male, had a lot of distinction among the group. The jury composition represented a diverse group of immigrants, seniors, poor family backgrounds, the blue-collar workers, elitist, and the prejudice/not prejudiced. This jury diversity, in the end, affected the views and reasoning’s, which lead to the unanimous decision of a not-guilty verdict. With jury majority rule, the non-prejudiced group was able to exert a normative influence on the group. For example, the juror from the poor background served as a comparative evidence measures, indicating that being from the “the ghetto” does not automatically makes everyone a criminal or a murderer. The “guilty” faction’s votes gradually changed to “not- guilty” as their emotions became subject to logical reasoning, compared to the biases and sentiments laden initially majority verdict of “guilty.” Leadership was a very vital issue in the deliberations and the final jury verdict. The unofficial “factions” group leaders played a major role in convincing and motivating their members, by relating to their emotions and reasoning’s. Eventually, the official group leader “the foreman” eventually, was able to take charge and control of the group and adequately lead the jury to completed deliberation. Every juror was able to make an enlightened decision of “not-guilty” based on inclusiveness, respect for one another, as well as their diverse perspectives.
The concept of reasoning and evidence can be ironic at times because claims of truth by certain jurors were often dictated clearly by their emotions. At one point, I felt the collective emotional fervor in the room become palpable. One juror, inexplicably, had not a single reason for his guilty verdict, albeit, he appeared to be, at least in the beginning of the film, of a more passive, easily-swayed character.
The above is a testament to the inherently faulty process of reasoning, as “rationality” is constantly skirmishing with antithetical emotion. Thus, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, the jury trial is imbued with the biases of the jurors, regardless of its composition. This notion is reinforced when we consider the integrity of the “evidence” itself.
Not long into the deliberation’s timeline do some jurors conclude that many of the claims by eye-witnesses that would classify as evidence are, at best, questionable. Due to this circumstance, reasoning by the jurors becomes an arduous task, made only more taxing by the oppressive summer heat. The confluence of these factors surges emotions upwards to the point of two jurors wanting to impose physical violence on each other.
To touch on the irony once again, those jurors with high-strung, arrogant dispositions were the same individuals who praised the rational process of the trial so much, that the evidence need not be challenged, despite the shakiness of the evidence. Juror #3 is the epitome of such a character who, at the conclusion of the deliberation, reveals to the audience a photograph of, who we could assume to be, the juror and his son. Nothing relevant to the photo is disclosed in the following scenes but this event conveys the idea that one’s past has the power to influence not just their decision-making process but also their broader worldview.
The film of “12 Angry men” takes place inside of a jury room in the late 1950s. There are 12 jurors in a small room on a hot day; creating an environment for these men to be easily agitated. These men are to deliberate whether an 18 year old male is guilty of murdering his father. These men are given testimonies from two neighbors, a knife as evidence and the layout of the father’s apartment.
The procedure that was used to govern who spoke throughout the film was unofficial. Juror number 1 took the leadership role in mediating the deliberation. It wasn’t much of an issue since everyone was able to voice their opinion, although some people became very disrespectful at certain points.
The first round of votes, of the elven out of the 12 jurors believed the verdict was guilty. Juror number 8 had to persuade the rest of the jurors to analyze the case in more depth instead of rejecting the notion that there is a possibility the young boy could be innocent. He asked everyone why they believed he was guilty. He felt as if he should be given motives as to why the boy is guilty before classifying the boy a murderer. It seemed as a form of negotiation before reaching an agreement. After everyone was able to voice their opinions juror eight had said all it takes is an anonymous vote and if everyone votes guilty, he would then conform to the idea that he is guilty. Juror nine voted not guilty. Juror three screams at juror five, assuming that he had made the ‘not guilty’ vote. Juror nine explains his vote and that all the jurors should take out the time to listen to juror eight, question and analyze the case before sentencing someone the death penalty. Some of the jurors then became more open minded. After asking questions about the knife and the layout of apartment, jurors made a vote. With juror eight’s analytical skills, he was able to slowly influence the vote of the rest of the jurors.
Reasoning and evidence had slowly influenced the rest of the jurors to stay longer and solve the case. After questioning the lady’s facial marks lead the jurors to believe that her eye sight wasn’t as pristine in order to make accurate judgement of actually seeing the boy kill his father through a passing train. They had also questioned the neighbor’s ability to run to the door and see the boy run out of the apartment; the neighbor had a stroke recently.
The role of emotion played heavily in this film. It showed everyone’s personality and it showed who was biased, stubborn and open minded. Juror number three was automatically biased because he had a son, who he cared for, and not had any sorts of contact with him after an argument. He was also stubborn because without reason he stood by to his belief until he had a breakdown at the end. Juror number seven was indifferent and really didn’t care what happened to the boy. He was mostly interested in his baseball game he had bought tickets to. The demographic composition of the jurors did play a role in the decision making process because juror number five who is from the ‘slums’ was able to point out aspects of the knife. He said that a knife as such, would be used in an upward stab, bringing more question as to why the boy may not have been the killer since he is shorter than his father.
The leadership role that juror number eight played saved the boy from a death sentence.
The movie “12 Angry Men” shows how jury members deliberate the verdict of an eighteen year old boy who was apparently seen stabbing his father to death. The minute these jurors got to the room someone stepped right up to be the leader. This was evident when this juror sat at the head of the table and started speaking up productively. The jurors took a vote going around the table and one person claimed that the boy was not guilty. The majority ruled for him being guilty. Since one juror voted not guilty this lead to all jurors having to go around the table stating why they believed the boy was guilty or not. He did not know exactly why he was not guilty but he also said that there is no prove that he was guilty. With this all the men went around the table deliberating the situation. They even did an anonymous vote on a piece of paper that afterword’s lead to even more deliberating.
The deliberations began and each juror stated why they believed the boy to be guilty. As each was stating their facts to back their verdict up the juror who believed the boy was not guilty kept questioning everyone’s answer. The jury started presenting evidence that the boy was guilty. They talked about the lady who saw the boy stab his father to death. They presented the knife and went around the table looking at it. It wasn’t towards the end of the movie that the knife was thought to not been possibly owned by the boy since how the lady described seeing the boy stabbing the father could not be the case because of height. Another piece of evidence that was discussed was that the women herself who had claimed the boy to be guilty of stabbing his father with the knife. This woman said that she wears glasses and she did not have her glasses on at the time of the court trial because a mark was left from her glasses on her nose. It was assumed that she just was there for publicity and did not in fact have the correct evidence presented to prove the boy was guilty.
As the deliberations progressed the audience learned more about one the jurors and his son. Emotion played a big role on the decision making and the feeling that was spread throughout the room. This one juror had a loud mouth and tough exterior. He did not want to admit the boy not being guilty towards the end of the movie when everyone had already changed their opinion to reflect the boy not be guilty. It was the third juror who compared this boy to his own son. He then told the audience in the beginning of the deliberation that he has not spoken to his son in two years. It is apparent that personal issues came into play when deliberating what the verdict should be for the boy. This juror’s verdict was coming out from his own grief and anger towards the situation between him and his son. There came a point where the juror tore up the picture he had stored in his wallet which signifies that he gives up. He then stated that the boy was not guilty.
Leadership played an important role in this deliberation. It was up to that one juror to truly stand up for his opinion from the start and to not back down from him saying that the boy was not guilty. It was up to him to pave the way for the reasoning behind both opinions.
Looking at the demographic composition of the jury, I believe that it affected the way the case was discussed and the outcome of the jury’s decision. All twelve jurors on the panel were all men who were older then the defendant. There were no females or young jurors on the panel and I believe that the perspective and dialect may have been different if there were other individuals involved rather than these men. The outcome may have been different as well as the ability to relate to a younger individual would have offered a different perspective on the case.
The film “12 Angry Men” was quite effective in showing the principles of deliberation; however, there are a few observations that are worthy of noting in this comment. Throughout the film, the men deciding on the innocence (or guilt) of the boy at trial seemed to have a general understanding that all men had an opportunity to voice their thoughts. Although there were times where the men would speak over each other while arguing the different arguments, there was a consensus that all members would be able to speak at a given time (even in a numerical order). I believe this rule for the most part worked as it enabled all members of the jury to be able to communicate their ideas while also being able to listen to all the different accounts of other jury members. I noticed that at the beginning, secret voting ballots were used to determine if a decision was reached (innocent or guilty), nonetheless, it was then suggested that votes be determined by a show of hand when men were becoming more restless due to a lack of a unanimous decision. This, to some degree I believe, influenced other jury members as some felt pressured to follow the common vote. One jury member in particular swayed his vote depending on the general consensus of the group. On the other hand, secret votes enabled jury members to cast “not guilty” votes, although different from the general belief since they would not be subject to criticism by others. Ultimately, it was understood that a unanimous decision had to be reached in order to conclude deliberation on the case.
Emotion played a huge role in the decision making process. The man who was last to cast a “not guilty vote” was driven emotionally due to his son and the bad relationship these two had due to the lack of responsibility and honest “young kids” had. This was what drove him to vote as guilty, and finally it was what also drove him to vote not guilty in the end. Emotion was also noticed when the older gentleman in the room was disrespected by one of the jury members. This made other jury members shift sides from guilty to not guilty. Last but not least, the demographic composition of the jury certainly had a role to play in the process of deliberation. To begin with, there were no women in the group. Mothers tend to be more sensitive with children, and the fact that all were men definitely impacted the overall feel with the jury and the case. There also seemed to be a disconnect with age. Jury members were noticeably more experienced in life and at the time there was a sense of “the young know nothing” mentality.
Evidence and reasoning played a major role in any deliberation. In this case the evidences were examined and reasons were analyzed and could not support the verdict of a death sentence. The knife used in the murder was not unique. The female witness’s ability to see well across the street wesin question. The male witness’s ability to ambulate fast enough to the door to see the murderer ran away, as well as his motive were also in question.
There were positive and negative emotions during the deliberation. Juror# 8 was calm, collected and pensive, while juror #11 was righteous and deliberative. Together, they provided the positive emotions, the rationals counteracting those negative emotions of juror #10, and juror #3. Juror # 8 was not sure if the boy murdered his father, and wanted to make sure they discuss the case thoroughly against the wishes of his fellow jurors. Juror #11 was from another country and reminded others that it was a privilege to participate in the jury process and it should not be taken lightly. Jury # 10 and # 3 were also very emotional, but negatively due to their prejudice and personal issue respectively.
The demographic composition of this jury composed of all white males from various ages and backgrounds. That there was not a single woman in the jury may have affected the outcome a little in this case. There was an old man in the jury can share his perspective on the male witness. The was a person who used to live in the poor neighborhood can give perspective of the accused. It would be helpful to have a female perspective on the female witness in this case.
Although we already discussed this in class, I wanted to share my points.
The types of reasoning was intriguing on their effects on the emotion in this film. The two main types of reasoning were the character reasoning in which they profiled the people involved with the murder. The old man, the young boy, the woman who saw the murder all had different roles in the understanding of what happened. 12 men saw a woman who wanted to look good for them, so when that became the reasoning they reversed how they would acknowledge her testimony. The old man who was an expert was discredited as his character changed. The profile of the defendant shifted from being a thug to being a victim which added to the emotional reasoning of the jury.
The voting procedures in 12 Angry Men were various ones such as raising your hands, secret ballot, and vocal vote. The rules had to be unanimous such as 12 to 0 either way. I believe in the beginning this allowed some of the voters to select “guilty” because of the pressure of everyone else raising their hand. Also since most of the jurors want to leave quickly, this 12 to nothing rule made it easy to allow others to select guilty without fully discussing the case. However since juror number 8 declares that he votes “not guilty”, this allows for a mandatory discussion of why he selected this decision. Thus, this gave him the best opportunity to show his reasoning. It also allows the jurors to analyze the case deeply as they should, and an opportunity for the other men to change their vote from guilty to not guilty. The secret ballot and vocal vote allow for the correct judicial procedure of a case to have a decision in this movie. At first, there was not much reasoning about the case. The 11 jurors accept the evidence and eyewitnesses to be the full truth. I believe that this might have been the arrangement of the jury. They were middle aged to older white men in the middle or upper middle class. For example, the two angry men and the broker believe that everyone from the slums are criminals. Therefore with their personal beliefs and accepting the “facts” of the evidence and eyewitnesses, they strongly hold on to the belief that the boy is guilty. They believe that facts cannot be wrong, ever and this is their negative emotion to the slums and the case as well. Juror number 8 has the negative emotion of everyone selecting not guilty without fully deliberating about the case. He also has a positive emotion to stay in that room as long as it takes so this boy can have the right to a fair trial. His emotions allow the long full discussion of the case, allowing the other jurors to re-think about the evidence and eyewitnesses’ testimonies, and everyone to rethink about their decision.