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?
101 thoughts on “12 Angry Men”
Comments are closed.
The twelve angry men was a great movie and I believe every jury should be made to watch it. In any given group, I think most times a leader arises whether appointed or chosen. Jury # 1 self appointed himself as the curator of the group; the group agreed they would take turns speaking but as it often happens, it did not happen that way. Speaking in turn is a productive way to give everyone involved in a deliberation a chance to make an argument for their opinions but it is hard to achieve when people are passionate about the topic being discussed. Emotions come into play and the urge to speak of out of turn can be overwhelming.
The juror used voting by a ballot and once voting by a secret written ballot which I think was the most effective. A secret ballot allows individuals to make decisions without worrying about rejection from the group. Congress votes used to be done by a secret ballot and many argue government was more effective at that time. A secret ballot allowed congress to vote on key issues without fear of rebuttals from lobby groups.
As a juror it is so easy to be compelled by one-sided evidence given by attorneys but careful examination of the evidence revealed signs for reasonable doubt. The two key witness were shown to be flawed after careful examination. The juror would have liked to think their decisions were based purely on facts but as the movie progressed we saw how the jurors prejudice and personal emotions negatively attributed to how decisions were made.
A jury consisting of all men would be run differently from a mix gendered group or one consisting of only women. Though the jury consisted of only men, they had representations from people with different background which I believe helps create a fair jury.
Irene, I also thought a lot about how the film would be different if it were made in the present day. The make-up of the jury would certainly be vastly different, with racial and gender diversity. I agree with you, that they did make an effort to include a mix of jurors from different socio-economic backgrounds, which created a nice variety of opinions. I also thought a lot about how the jurors would have felt about the death penalty in 2015. I imagine in this current day there would have been more thought placed on sentencing a young man to death, since the death penalty has become less popular than it was in the 1950s.
Definitely agree with your last statement. Some of the jurors on the jury were absolutely clouded in judgment due to their background, and as a whole, the jury was homogeneous in both race and gender. As an example, without that one particular juror who did grow up int the slums, discrediting the way the knife went down would have never happened.
Additionally, the other juror who was a blue-collar worker was also able to provide evidence that the L-Train was extremely loud, and it would have been impossible for the old man in the apartment underneath to hear.
Without those two jurors from different class backgrounds, key points of evidence could not have been refuted. Perhaps if there were jurors from other genders as well as races, more evidence could have been refuted quicker.
I am glad I had the opportunity to watch 12 Angry Men again. Last time I’ve watched it was during 10th grade English class. I don’t know if the lackluster, black and white film was unappealing to me then, or if it was my 15-year-old-get-me-out-of-class mindset, but I don’t recall having an appreciation of the film as I do this second time around.
This second time around, having approximately 11 more years of human experience and interaction under my belt, 12 Angry Men proves to be more substantial to me because of the shared, lived experience I have with the film. Although never serving on jury for a first-degree murder trial, I am sure we can all relate to managing or at least collaborating with a group of such diversifying and clashing personalities.
This film beautifully depicted a realistic interpretation of not what just jurors face, but also what any group has to face in order to come to a common consensus. The procedure used in the film to govern who spoke and vote was essentially placed numerical order of their assigned juror number. This, in theory, is an effective process, but as we have witnessed in the film, strong personalities tend to dominate the group mentality.
Initially in 12 Angry Men, even when it comes to the life or death of a young man’s life, 11 out of 12 jurors were easy to follow the majority opinion of the group, and vote towards a death sentence without any further deliberation or critical thought. I think this alone indicates how influential a group mentality could be when it comes to suppressing thought, reason and evidence. As rational as going in numerical voting order can be, it appeared to be most effective as an anonymous vote, as juror #8 requested after finding himself standing alone in his argument. Through this example, and admittedly through personal examples, people instinctively avoid conflict in order to maintain a harmonizing environment. Through anonymity, individuals feel more comfortable in voicing opinions without the fear of argument.
Thankfully for Henry Fonda’s character, he was able to recollect the group and create a new center of gravity for the conversation. His inquisitive personality and ability to independently act was conducive to further analysis and place the focus back on reason and evidence. Without Fonda’s comfort in disagreeing, we wouldn’t have seen the facts of the trial unravel, the roller coaster of emotions play out, nor would we have been able to see the personalities of the jurors and how prejudice clouded judgment and “facts”, which set the agenda for their decision.
I don’t believe that the demographic composition of the jurors (mostly white, middle-older aged men) was racially diverse enough in creating a fair trial for a young, minority male. However, as the personalities and emotions were able to surface, you were able to see how diverse the men really were in thought. The strongest personalities on the jury seemed to be the most prejudiced. One juror called the defendant as “one of them”, and another juror who was strong in opinion created a prejudice by negatively relating the defendant to his own son.
Hi – I really liked one of the points you touched on – the calm, non-defensiveness of Fonda’s character. It was fascinating to watch him respond to the others without getting defensive about his position, and without reacting to the other men’s emotions or lack of clear reasoning. Fonda’s character’s sense of self-worth was clearly attached more to his own set of values (and luckily for the defendant those values included curiosity and logic) and less to the idea of feeling part of a group. In fact, the more group-think was going on, the more committed Fonda seemed to “not guilty” – although not necessarily innocent — those two things should never be conflated (did anyone listen to the podcast Serial?)
Sylvia, great post! I too watched the film in High School and see it in a different light this time around. I think being older and seeing life differently definitely plays a role in that. On that note i definitely enjoyed it more the second time. I also agree that people are more comfortable expressing their views when public opinion or judgement isn’t a factor. I’m happy that option was given.
The Film 12 Angry Men was an interesting portrayal of one Juries decision-making process. There was a group of 12 Jurors, all men, who were responsible for deciding whether or not a young man was guilty of murdering his father. Initially the 12 men decided to identify themselves by number as Juror #1, Juror #2, Juror #3 etc. This creates a notion that these are just 12 unbiased men attempting to make a fair decision based on strictly fact; however, as the story unravels we begin to see that the men’s personal feelings and bias’s do in fact play a role in their decision making, and they each are in fact more than just a number.
Although it was not discussed in depth, the men briefly develop rules for speaking. Juror # 1 appoints himself as the curator of the group. It is decide that each Juror will speak in turn in the order in which they were numbered. This in theory seems to be a brilliant approach; however, it becomes quickly evident that this may not have been the most efficient approach. The men may seem to be like- minded individuals; however, we all know from experience that no two individuals are exactly the same in every aspect, especially when it comes to rationale and decision-making. We quickly begin to see that each Juror comes with their own set of experiences and emotional turmoil. Some Jurors have very strong opinions and tend to dominate the group, while others have a more laid back approach. When the topic of discussion hits close to home we see that even the more laid back jurors become hot headed and emotionally excited causing them to speak out of turn.
The men use two different methods in order to reach their final decision. Initially they go around the room and state their position as guilty or not guilty. Their votes were shared publically with the rest of the Jurors and we begin to see how many of the Jurors are in some way being swayed into voting not guilty just for the sake of saving time and reaching a majority consensus. Later on it is suggested that the men vote through a secret ballot method. This method seems to create some uproar among the men as we begin to see many of the Jurors sway from their initial votes. It is clear that the Jurors feel more comfortable exploring the case and sharing their true view when the secret ballot approach is taken. The secret ballot creates an agreeable environment in which the men can express their views without fear of rejection from the other men.
Emotion becomes a dominant factor in this film. The Jury is supposed to be focusing strictly on fact; however, the instances in which emotion interferes with factual evidence are the moments in which we remember that these 12 men are only human. The underlying beauty in this film comes from the fact that human nature will always be imperfect and flawed. No matter how often we may try to perfect our legal system there will always be cases that slip through the cracks. Although these men were eventually able to sweep their emotions aside and crack down on the factual evidence, there were many instances in which their emotions did get the best of them and interfered with their decision-making. One Juror went as far as voting guilty due to his own personal dilemma with his own son. A few years ago I participated in a mock trial at my sisters law school. The school provided a real Jury who was encouraged to make a decision based on fact and not emotion. Due to the factual evidence given the defendant was supposed to be charged as not guilty; however, the opposing party created such an emotional appeal to the jury that the jury in fact wrongly determined the defendant to be guilty. There have been many times in which I have witnessed the same scenario being carried out, as it was in the film as well. This film served as a great learning experience and is a great way to demonstrate how individuals interact during any important decision making process.
Hi Dona! Reading about your experience during the mock trial and the jury’s results prove how emotion plays a substantial and influential factor upon important decision more than fact in most circumstances of court cases, and in life. You are absolutely right in stating how human nature will always be imperfect and flawed, which the legal system is created by humans, which the system will remain to have flaws and cracks. I do believe as we become more educated and informed, we can as a society do better to implement changes to the system to better work for us. Also, within the movie, amongst the jurors I found how majority opinion can be the death of truth and fact in most cases.
I agree. I also feel that at the end that logical and rational won in this film. I think that it is almost impossible to be able to separate emotion and logic. It takes a very self knowledgeable individual to be able to deliver. I wonder if they would have voted guilty how would they slept at night
Really liked your points about emotion, and definitely agree with them. I myself did mock trial in undergrad, and found that the most successful mock prosecutors and defense attorneys were those who appealed to emotion. Sometimes, it didn’t even matter what was said, but how certain mock attorneys would say it. An extra tone of pity, a tinge of smile, and a appeal to the heartstrings would sometimes all that would be needed. While we as a society like to think we’ve risen above our instincts and biology with logic and reason, emotion will always capture both the heart and mind.
The Film 12 Angry Men was an interesting portrayal of one Juries decision-making process. There was a group of 12 Jurors, all men, who were responsible for deciding whether or not a young man was guilty of murdering his father. Initially the 12 men decided to identify themselves by number as Juror #1, Juror #2, Juror #3 etc. This creates a notion that these are just 12 unbiased men attempting to make a fair decision based on strictly fact; however, as the story unravels we begin to see that the men’s personal feelings and bias’s do in fact play a role in their decision making, and they each are in fact more than just a number.
Although it was not discussed in depth, the men briefly develop rules for speaking. Juror # 1 appoints himself as the curator of the group. It is decide that each Juror will speak in turn in the order in which they were numbered. This in theory seems to be a brilliant approach; however, it becomes quickly evident that this may not have been the most efficient approach. The men may seem to be like- minded individuals; however, we all know from experience that no two individuals are exactly the same in every aspect, especially when it comes to rationale and decision-making. We quickly begin to see that each Juror comes with their own set of experiences and emotional turmoil. Some Jurors have very strong opinions and tend to dominate the group, while others have a more laid back approach. When the topic of discussion hits close to home we see that even the more laid back jurors become hot headed and emotionally excited causing them to speak out of turn.
The men use two different methods in order to reach their final decision. Initially they go around the room and state their position as guilty or not guilty. Their votes were shared publicly with the rest of the Jurors and we begin to see how many of the Jurors are in some way being swayed into voting not guilty just for the sake of saving time and reaching a majority consensus. Later on it is suggested that the men vote through a secret ballot method. This method seems to create some uproar among the men as we begin to see many of the Jurors sway from their initial votes. It is clear that the Jurors feel more comfortable exploring the case and sharing their true view when the secret ballot approach is taken. The secret ballot creates an agreeable environment in which the men can express their views without fear of rejection from the other men.
Emotion becomes a dominant factor in this film. The Jury is supposed to be focusing strictly on fact; however, the instances in which emotion interferes with factual evidence are the moments in which we remember that these 12 men are only human. The underlying beauty in this film comes from the fact that human nature will always be imperfect and flawed. No matter how often we may try to perfect our legal system there will always be cases that slip through the cracks. Although these men were eventually able to sweep their emotions aside and crack down on the factual evidence, there were many instances in which their emotions did get the best of them and interfered with their decision-making. One Juror went as far as voting guilty due to his own personal dilemma with his own son. A few years ago I participated in a mock trial at my sisters law school. The school provided a real Jury who was encouraged to make a decision based on fact and not emotion. Due to the factual evidence given the defendant was supposed to be charged as not guilty; however, the opposing party created such an emotional appeal to the jury that the jury in fact wrongly determined the defendant to be guilty. There was many times in which I saw this same scenario being carried out in the film as well. This film served as a great learning experience and is a great way to demonstrate how individuals interact during any important decision making process.
I liked your discussion about the role emotions play in jury dynamics and decision-making. Despite the fact that in the case of 12 Angry Men, the jurors clearly came to the “right” decision – the decision that the filmmaker wanted them (and us) to come to– and despite the fact that I am comfortable with the decision that the jury I served on came to, I have often thought that if I were in such as situation, I would prefer to have 3 judges hear the case, not a jury of my peers.
I agree with you that emotions became a dominant factor in the film. Is was a great portrayal of how emotions entwined with prejudice can be detrimental if people are not willing to confront them.
Dona, I like how you tied together ’12 Angry Men’ and your experience at your sister’s mock trial in your post. I agree that the film was very educational in portraying human interaction during a decision making process. Unfortunately, despite attempting to control for bias human nature often gets in the way.
Good point about emotions playing huge part. Especially the juror who was so adament about a voting guilty because of his serious realtionship trouble with his own son.
There were 12 jurors and Juror#1 acted as the leader of the group, since he was the one that initiated the voting procedure of speaking out their choice in a clockwise motion around the circular table. I found the speaking to be only productive in a smaller group because even if they argued, voices (their opinions) still can be heard. When the 12 jurors were arguing out their own opinions and ignoring the other jurors. They still reached a consensus at the end with everyone choosing their choices, I just think that it is not very time productive. There were three types of voting being seen, first they were open votes (speaking out their choices), where everyone were taking turns and say whether the defendant was guilty or not. Later on, there was another voting procedure, a closed ballot, where the jurors wrote down their choices instead of speaking out loud. The last one is when the jurors raise their hands whether the defendant is guilty or not. I found the closed/hidden ballot to be a much better option compared to the open ballot because with open ballot there’s tend to be peer pressure from the majority side of the group compared to the minority. This situation can be seen at the beginning of the movie during the first voting.
Reasoning and evidence definitely played a heavy role in this decision making process because there were several details that the defendant lawyer didn’t went over, but the Juror (Davis) found these details to be extremely important and they can be the game changer for winning the case. After explaining the significant minor details to the other jurors, they were question the “facts” they original have. Also, I noticed that the so called “facts” were based stereotypes because of the fact that the victim grew up in a slums area, people automatic judgment is he is nothing but a troublemaker. Based on this, we can infer that the demographics of income (the gap) between the working class and lower working class (poverty) were extremely large (based on the movie time frame). Furthermore, based on my own opinion, the crime rates around the movie time are probably extremely high, thus enhancing the stereotypes of people from slums.
I think the weather is also a negative aspect during the whole discussion, the reason why everyone wishes to leave is because of the heat in the room, and there’s no fan or air conditioner. I believed that if the room has AC then the other jurors wouldn’t be in a rush to make the decision as quickly as possible. This is just my personal opinion based on the movie.
They don’t make movie like this anymore. I wish they did! Film flew by, even though it was shot in one room.
One juror acted as the room leader. He loosely kept the procedures, voting and discussion moving along. Basically, each person was supposed to be given a chance to speak as they moved around the table. Of course, in heated moments, people spoke out of turn, but I felt like in the end everyone had a chance to voice their opinion.
I thought the secret and open voting methods worked nicely. The secret vote allowed someone to express themselves without being singled out, which was nice. But in a situation like this, people’s vote/opinion will come out eventually during the case discussions.
I thought the decision making rules allowed for a rough, somewhat systematic approach to reaching a final outcome. I really liked how Fonda kept saying “Let’s talk it out.” That was the theme of the movie for me—“Talk it out.” And the juror’s behaved respectfully and civil towards each other for the most part. I mean, no punches were thrown. I think this shows that juror deliberation, with proper rules and organization, can work.
Emotion played a big part of the discussion too. The heated discussions exposed a few of the juror’s prejudices. I thought the summer heat and lack of air conditioner also added fuel to the intensity of the deliberations.
Deliberation in this movie happened in many forms. I don’t know why but I have never thought of being part of a jury as a deliberation( probably because i have never taken part of a jury). The movie displayed how we as people are inclined to agree with the majority of the group. Imagine if the one that lone jury feared to voice their opinion? Deliberation allowed things that seemed closed and shut to be questioned. Deliberation allowed this young man on the stand to get a chance at justice. I have heard many people complain about having to serve on a jury but i think its such an important aspect of democracy. As a nation, its common to hear people say they feel like their voice does not matter to the democratic process but participating in a jury can help you this I agree with you that they do not make movies like this anymore and I am surprised how much I enjoyed this movie; I watched it twice. I was dreading it when I read we had to watch the 1957 version but was pleasantly surprised.
Greg! That’s interesting because I did not feel that the film flew by! In my opinion, it seemed like the movie intentionally dragged on to give the audience a sense of what the jurors were experiencing in “real time”.
Hey Sylvia! When you finally reach my age one day, you’re going to find out that time moves much faster!! Not sure why that is. But that’s my experience so far.
Yes! Exactly! “Let’s talk it out” which is something we as a society neglect to do. I found that comment to be extremely insightful. It shone a light on issues of humanity. The social responsibility that we have towards one another. Let’s talk it out, let’s work things out, lets be humane.
You pointed out right that the summer conditions significantly contributed to a more intense discussions in the room. Speaking in turn certainly allowed for a fair exchange of opinions, however some breakthrough moments came from displays of raw emotion, especially with the final juror’s change of heart.
I like the point you make about how the hot summer heat and room conditions affected the Jurors attitudes. This specifically brought me to the realization that there are a multitude of factors and conditions that can play into influencing a Jury’s decision. Although many of us may overlook these circumstance at first glance it may be important for our legal system to try and foresee these factors and control them beforehand.
Jury duty is something that many people try to either fully avoid or completely embrace. But what happens when you are selected to be on a jury, especially on a death penalty case? Eleven of the twelve jurors thought it was open and shut, but one man thought they should be absolutely certain.
To begin, the jurors tried to implement a procedure of careful deliberation that would allow each man to express his opinion by going around the room one at a time. Unfortunately, the jurors quickly broke their own rules when emotions entered the discussion. The intensity of the rising emotions began to conflict with the sense of order and decorum that existed when they first entered the deliberation room.
A juror often has a difficult time not bringing personal bias into the jury room. Since this jury was composed of white businessmen who generally came from more affluent backgrounds than the defendant, several jury members already had a preconceived opinion of what type of person the defendant must be. Because of these preconceived notions, the jurors assumed that it would be quite possible for the defendant to have committed the crime simply because of where he was from and how he was raised. Had the jury been composed of a more diverse group of people from varying backgrounds, they may have had an entirely different discussion.
Emotion was a strong motivator in the deliberations of the jury. As they continued to deliberate they became more emotional about not only their opinions but how they would feel about saying guilty. This is emphasized as we see the jurors start to sweat and loosen their ties as they became more and more unsure of their original guilty verdict. Ironically, such intense emotions actually resulted in careful deliberation, rather than the initial rush to judgment, all motivated by an effort to prove Juror number 8 wrong.
Whether or not the defendant committed the crime became the secondary story of the movie. The primary focus was the psychology behind the process of being jurors and the influence of their individual upbringings and views of the world. The jurors’ lack of any real understanding of how their verdict affected the life of another human being was most evident as they exited the courthouse, each man in a hurry to get back to the life they had left behind with no concern for their fellow jurors or the defendant.
I do agree that it is extremely difficult for jurors to remain unbiased and kept their emotions in check. Especially when the defendant’s situation is really similar to the Juror where he mentioned to the others that he tried to make a man for his son, but end up ruining his relationship with his son. This is another reason why he wishes to punish the defendant.
I served on a jury about 20 years ago in Washington, DC for a 1st degree murder case. It was a cold case – meaning the crime had happened about 10 years before but because of new evidence, it was being tried later. The new evidence was given by a young man who had been a child when he had witnessed a crime – he had declined to testify earlier – yet was willing to later. The child was older, no less certain of what he saw, just less frightened as he had grown up.
The jury room was actually quite similar to what was portrayed in the movie with two very important exceptions – the jury was not all white men and, I hate to say this, the general level of thoughtfulness was lower than what was portrayed in the film. My situation started out remarkably similarly (although I had not seen the movie at the time). We did a preliminary vote to see where we all stood and the vote was all for guilty except for one person. And I was that person. The issue for me revolved around reasonable doubt. I found the situation described by the (former) child and family of the murdered man to be beyond my comprehension. The other jurors were more or less polite and we engaged in conversation but, unlike 12 Angry Men, there were no situations to unravel, no conflicting bits of evidence, no moments in time to work through like the sequence of events through the train window and no personal situations that (seemed) to weigh so heavily on any jurors’ understanding of the situation.
In my jury situation, the crime took place in the projects – culturally far away but geographically close to where I grew up. There was another juror – woman in her 30s probably – who had grown up in the projects, near where the murder had taken place who spent a lot of time talking through the particular situations with me and explaining what life was like in the projects and that there were situations that I found incomprehensible that she found not only believable but normal to daily life. There was also a lawyer on the jury who spent a lot of time discussing the parameters of reasonable doubt – but my only doubt there was why he was on the jury in the first place.
The film did an amazing job drawing the viewer into the case – the fiction of discovering the crime details through the deliberative dialogue was an effective hook – essentially requiring the viewer to continually retain and review information – keeping you hooked. It wasn’t until I reflected afterward that I realized that the portrayal of the jurors depended heavily on stereotypes (the racist, the old man, the young but smart guy etc.)
The film also did a wonderful job creating tension in what is often a rather boring tedious process – the thunderstorm, the heat in the room all served to raise the emotional temperature. Unfortunately, in my case, the situation bordered on boring. I had to find a way to wrestle with my own thoughts. The other jurors were polite and no one hurried me or seemed distressed at staying as long as it took. The tension in the movie was created also by the lack of a sentencing phase – the jurors in the movie were automatically condemning a man to a death sentence if they convicted him. There was no death penalty in DC at the time.
The one thing that struck me as strange in the movie – until I reflected back on my own experience – was the lack of introductions and names. We did not use names in the jury I served on. We may have know first names and general areas of employment but there were no real introductions and that anonymity was very important to the deliberative process. If you did not know who anyone was, there was less chance of being swayed by personal situations, identifications and emotions.
In case anyone is interested – I eventually decided to vote “guilty.”
Rachel, It was amazing to read how your experience as a juror was similar to that of 12 Angry men, despite the vast difference in time from when the movie was made to your experience in your case. It shows how deliberation amongst us as citizens haven’t change that much, which is something to ponder about our progression as a society. I found the part you spoke of regarding another juror explaining to you how life in the projects were and the intricacies of what was deemed “normal” which would be outrageous to some, influenced your decision since you were informed and exposed. The same happened within the movie, once the other jurors heard detailed rationale and explanation from Henry Fonda’s character, it influenced them to reconsider their thoughts and rationale as well. I can see how in changing your decision was solely based upon you being convinced by the enlightened information you received.
“The one thing that struck me as strange in the movie – until I reflected back on my own experience – was the lack of introductions and names. We did not use names in the jury I served on. We may have know first names and general areas of employment but there were no real introductions and that anonymity was very important to the deliberative process. If you did not know who anyone was, there was less chance of being swayed by personal situations, identifications and emotions.”
Yes, I also find this interesting, and I like how the director emphasized this fact at the last scene where the two jurors introduced themselves to each other when all was said and done. The anonymity of the characters prevent any prejudice or bias aside from what they reveal themselves through dialogue. Even with the defendant, we started with a clean slate. We didn’t know his name, any demographics, or any facts of the trial until it was revealed to us in deliberation. And of course the same goes for the jurors. All we know from the characters is through what was deliberated in that room.
Interesting comment about your jury experience being like 12 angry men in regards to keeping anonymity. I guess your right, less chance of being swayed if you don’t know the person so well. Thanks for sharing your experience.
I love your post and how you held the answer to the one question I wanted to know until the end. If you don’t mind me asking, what made you decide to ultimately vote guilty? I have never taken part of a jury and find the process very interesting. I watch a lot of these crime shows (i know they’re fictional but they are my guilty pleasure) and often wonder how it really happens so its interesting to read first hand. I know the anonymity helped with the deliberation process but do you believe it also aides in concealing people’s prejudice? You mentioned there was a lawyer in the jury; knowing this could have made a difference when it comes to deliberation.
Hi – I have thought a lot in the last 20 years about what made me vote guilty in the end. I did not feel overwhelming pressure from anyone on the jury to do it, nor did I feel like they were annoyed with me. There was more testimony – including an indirect admission of guilt. I know that I wrestled with the idea of reasonable doubt. Believe it or not, I was on a jury again a few years later – also in DC. This time it was an assault case with a weapon – a knife. The original charges ranged from attempted murder all the way down to a concealed weapon charge – just a misdemeanor. This time I was jury chairperson and we approached the situation in a very logical manner. The course of events was not really in dispute just the severity of the interaction of human and knife and intent of the kid (now he really seems like a kid to me – he was probably 19). We got rid of all of the more serious charges very quickly and three lesser charges remained. Frankly my memory of the details is hazy but I do remember that this situation was difficult because so much did revolve around intent. It was something like the kid did own the knife and bring it but how another kid ended up with it and how someone ended up hurt (although not very hurt) was in dispute even though there were many people there. In the end, I felt strongly that without overwhelming evidence one way or another about what happened, we could only find him guilty of the one thing that everyone admitted – that he had brought a concealed weapon to a playground. In the end, that is how we voted. The way I approached it as jury chair was to start from the most serious charges down and discussed how alternate scenarios also fit the evidence. This situation — even more than the 1st degree murder case — was enlightening. I was never sure about what really happened on that playground — it could have happened the way the prosecution presented it. But with both the presumption of innocence – and the idea of reasonable doubt, it did not seem possible to convict him of more than the misdemeanor.
oops — sorry about the different picture.
rachael
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.
I like your take on how they were all looking to each other for the “right” answer. They were trying to fit in with the majority rather than think for themselves. It became more of a game of what does everyone else think is the correct decision, rather than what each juror believed to be the correct decision. Jack Klugman’s character was also interesting in this situation as he was the only person who had the closest upbringing to the defendant. He could best understand what may have led the defendant to commit such a crime. You can truly see his reluctance in the beginning, but out of fear of being the odd one out, initially voted guilty. Also, you see how, once his background is revealed, that the other jurors try to recant on their statements. They feel remorse for their comments and claim they has nothing to do with him personally.
You can also see how their emotions of making a decision and their own guilt of being so rash in their initial judgment begins to take effect. As you mentioned, Lee J. Cobb’s character’s broken relationship with his own son is the primary driving force in his decision. He believed any kid would be guilty because his own son was guilty in his eyes. You even see him slowly staggering out of the courthouse at the end with the weight of the situation on his shoulders. It is difficult to check your emotions and personal problems at the door, but if Fonda had not been able to separate his personal life from his position as a juror there may have been an entirely different outcome.
oops. it seemed to have flipped my user photo there, sorry!
Like your take on emotion affecting the deliberation process. It’s a major problem that still exist today. That’s why the jury selection process is so important to a case. Defense attorneys/Prosecutors will eliminate a potential juror if there is even the slightest inclination of conflict/emotion that may play into how they’ll vote.
Batya – you make a great point that individuals in a group feel pressure to conform to the majority opinion. Individuals are easily influenced by others and had Juror 8 not been confident enough to question the majority opinion, this boy would have been sentenced to death. The film also shows how quick people are to judge and make decisions. The vote was almost unanimous immediately after taking the initial vote – they did not even stop to rethink and discuss what was presented at the trial. Sometimes we make bad choices as a result of not thinking things through.
I must say that I was thoroughly impressed by this movie and how if truly called for intense listening and critical thinking while watching it. I watched it twice!!! I believe that the portrayal of a jury’s process as to coming to a decision was true to form, even within today’s justice system.
As the jurors established an order as to who would speak, the procedure was to vote and then allow each juror to state their case as to why they came to a conclusion of their decision. At first the rules that were established were of use, but as the point of views began to differ and the jurors argued, the rules and order of stating their case starting to dissipate amongst group discussion and cross examining the evidence repeatedly.
When the jury began, they decided to vote by taking a ballot by paper. One of the juror’s joked around about voting for senator, as which shows how they didn’t take the voting process that serious, due to the decision they previously came up with in their minds. Then they voted for preliminary vote assuming all the votes would be guilty.
Once they realized that there was a not-guilty vote, the jurors reluctantly began to deliberate with Henry Fonda’s character as to why he chose that decision. Once a few jurors began to listen and truly rationalize over the specific aspects that Henry Fonda’s character presented and pointed out to them, he specifically requested for a secret ballot, because he knew in his heart that someone would see that there were no absolute pieces or testimonies of the case that proved the defendant to be guilty, and they wouldn’t be ostracized nor ridiculed for their change of mind. A few of the jurors listened to how aristocratic prejudices of some of the jurors played a huge part upon the others vote and took offense as one juror shared a similar background to the defendant. Stereotypical prejudgment played a huge factor in the majority of the jurors mentality in their guilty decisions. This same mentality exists amongst the citizens within our society and our justice system today.
The reasoning and evidence began to play a role, but it took a turn when emotions started to provoke tension amongst the jurors based upon their point of views and prejudices.
Emotion played a substantial role amongst the jurors and their decisions. The jurors all used some kind of emotional pressure and influence based upon the revelations of the evidence and new facts that were presented amongst each other. Sympathetic analysis of the suspect’s childhood circumstances evoked Henry Fonda’s thoughts that convinced him to decide not guilty and rationalized the evidence presented in court.
One juror expressed to another juror at the very beginning of the film how there should have been an excessive force to stop these “rotten kids” from committing crimes. He also expressed his boredom of the case as he was convinced the defendant was undeserving of a chance. Yes the demographic composition of the jury was not diverse as the jurors consisted of mainly Caucasian, middle & upper class, businessmen who were not sensitive to people with different backgrounds and experiences. They stereotyped the defendant based upon his race, where he came from and lived, and his age.
If we are to truly analyze and review facts of evidence, and the lack thereof which is not given, that are placed in front of us and critically think before we race to a judgment of people and situations that occur within today’s society, we can truly attain justice within this country.
That’s a good point mentioning about the demographic composition of the jury was not diverse, because I learned from my past co-worker when he used to live in Manhattan, he was often called up for jury duty until he moved to Bronx. His ethnicity is Black/African-American. Based on his information, I can guess that minorities of different borough tend to be called up more often than majority. Is this true?
A couple of different voting procedures were used in the film. The initial vote was done publically while the second ballot was casted secretly. During the second, secret ballot, the jurors who were not originally confident to disagree with the group submitted their true opinion. The secret ballot was some form of psychological experiment that suggested that a person is more confident to say how he really feels when a vote is done anonymously. This forces us to speculate the fairness of the jury system; this young boy could have been convicted and given the death sentence had not Juror 3 suggest a secret ballot.
Reasoning did not play such a significant role in the decision process because all it took for the jurors to doubt their decision was a little time and some thinking from a new perspective. The evidence presented at the trial was clearly not enough to convict the defendant. Those who claimed to be basing their decision on “facts” were not always committed to the rational process. Juror 3 let emotion play a role; his own personal experiences got in the way of the rational process. Juror 3 was letting circumstances from his own life color his judgment and by doing this he was promoting his own personal agenda instead of pursuing justice for the accused. His estranged relationship with his son forced him to project his anger towards the accused and he hoped to find some resolution by punishing him.
@c.golding, I didn’t catch that juror #3 was holding on to such anger toward his son and displacing on the defense until the emotional tirade. It makes it scary that because the movie shows how personal emotions and personal biases can interfere with rational decision making, especially when it deals with the lives of others.
I had never seen the movie 12 angry men before and agree that this movie can start a conversation about deliberation because the whole movie is basically all deliberations.
The most productive governance of who would speak occurred when one juror said that the jurors who thought the defendant was guilty should prove to the juror voting not guilty why the defendant was guilty. This forced everyone, who was quick to decide, to formulate in their own words why they believed the defendant was guilty.
The voting procedures in the movie varied throughout. At first the vote was public by raising hands that lead to only one not guilty vote possibly because some voters did not want to go against the pack. Then later in the movie they voted by paper ballot that lead to even more not guilty votes and lead to more talk from those who still believed that there was no reasonable doubt.
Juror number 3, that always stated the “facts” were the key; was not always open to the rational process of deliberation. He did not want to hear about the reasons why there could be reasonable doubt. He was also the last one to realize that he was affected by personal experience.
I had never seen the movie 12 angry men before and agree that this movie can start a conversation about deliberation because the whole movie is basically all deliberations.
The most productive governance of who would speak occurred when one juror said that the jurors who thought the defendant was guilty should prove to the juror voting not guilty why the defendant was guilty. This forced everyone, who was quick to decide, to formulate in their own words why they believed the defendant was guilty.
The voting procedures in the movie varied throughout. At first the vote was public by raising hands that lead to only one not guilty vote possibly because some voters did not want to go against the pack. Then later in the movie they voted by paper ballot that lead to even more not guilty votes and lead to more talk from those who still believed that there was no reasonable doubt.
Juror number 3, that always stated the “facts” were the key; was not always open to the rational process of deliberation. He did not want to hear about the reasons why there could be reasonable doubt. He was also the last one to realize that he was affected by personal experience.
@kb167669 ‘Juror number 3, that always stated the “facts” were the key; was not always open to the rational process of deliberation. He did not want to hear about the reasons why there could be reasonable doubt.’
Very true. Juror #3 had to hear himself, which was most important because it was then he realized there were major discrepancies in the evidence.
It seemed to me that Juror #3 was the moral of the story. I believe that rationality is potentially the most sought after value in deliberation, and because he allowed his emotions to cloud his rational thinking, he was perceived in a negative light throughout the film.
You bring up a point that I’d thought about as well: “At first the vote was public by raising hands that lead to only one not guilty vote possibly because some voters did not want to go against the pack.”
I’m inclined to believe an anonymous paper vote, as they did for the second round, is the better way to handle an initial vote. However I’d also hope that after the vote people would openly share their thoughts of why they voted the way they did.
Voting openly has the potential to create an atmosphere where someone may feel pressure to vote a certain way. I wonder how many people over the years have been swayed to vote opposite of what they believe.
@KBudway You bring up a point that I’d thought about as well: “At first the vote was public by raising hands that lead to only one not guilty vote possibly because some voters did not want to go against the pack.”
@kb167669 I’m inclined to believe an anonymous paper vote, as they did for the second round, is the better way to handle an initial vote. However I’d also hope that after the vote people would openly share their thoughts of why they voted the way they did.
Voting openly has the potential to create an atmosphere where someone may feel pressure to vote a certain way. I wonder how many people over the years have been swayed to vote opposite of what they believe.
@kb167669 You bring up a point that I’d thought about as well: “At first the vote was public by raising hands that lead to only one not guilty vote possibly because some voters did not want to go against the pack.”
I’m inclined to believe an anonymous paper vote, as they did for the second round, is the better way to handle an initial vote. However I’d also hope that after the vote people would openly share their thoughts of why they voted the way they did.
Voting openly has the potential to create an atmosphere where someone may feel pressure to vote a certain way. I wonder how many people over the years have been swayed to vote opposite of what they believe.
I agree with you on the initial vote being anonymous. This way it’ll be a more accurate depiction of where each juror stood.
But the anonymous voting can only go so far. As you point out, the jurors would need to argue on why they voted the way they did. For example, if there is an anonymous 11-1 vote, the 1 can’t remain anonymous and must step forward to try to convince the other 11.
Kevin,
I noticed that you updated your profile picture. I attempted to do that as well, after I noticed my strange default picture, however I was unsuccessful. Do you mind telling me how you updated your picture so that i can try again….?
12 Angry Men was an excellent portrayal of multiple types of deliberation. Obviously Davis, played by Fonda, was the best deliberator. He was strong enough to stand his ground against 11 other men and calmly explain his position. These were not passive men either, many were very strong willed. Rather than forcing his opinion, he was able to have everyone else reflect on the facts. In doing so the 11 others were able to see discrepancies in the evidence, reflect on their own biases and as a result created a reasonable doubt.
Most people do not possess the ability to deliberate like Davis, nor is strong willed to hold their own opinion even where there is a great amount of pressure from their peers. Remaining calm, yet confident, knowing when to be passive and when to be active is not an easy I personally have not been to jury duty yet, but this film is a great example on how to approach such a responsibility especially when someone’s life is on the line.
Davis used listening as a tool to his advantage. Those who listened to Davis were able to realize the discrepancies. However, Davis was able to allow the others to listen to themselves, which forced them to see their biases and inconsistencies in evidence.
Yes… and Davis did very little to be the best deliberator because all he stated was that he just wanted to “talk”. The important part I felt was when the one Juror said that it should be up to them to prove to him the guilt of the defendant and not the other way around which lead Davis to an easy out. He didn’t have to prove the reasonable doubt because everyone else got there on their own.
The jurors had a spokes person who organized voting. First was by show of hands, next was by secret ballot. As others were forced to articulate why they felt the defense was innocent or guilty it was clear they all had reasonable doubt.
12 Angry Men is a great representation of human behavior.
It’s far too common for a group of people, especially strangers, to concur on a decision simply to avoid any conflict. This is especially prominent in situations where the decision makers are not impacted by the decision they make.
It appeared as though the 12 jurors in the movie were headed in that direction until the lone dissenting juror decided to speak up. Since a unanimous decision was needed, it forced all 12 members to deliberate the issue further.
With only one not guilty vote, the group settled on taking turns to give their opinions. It started out rather peaceful but as more doubt began to surface the tension in the room grew. No longer were they speaking in turn but anyone who wanted to chime in did. This conflict that some were trying to avoid was actually important in sprawling the conversation further. To have an effective deliberation we need strong arguments from both sides and as more people switched to a not guilty vote, the deliberations became more productive.
The jurors were suddenly more eager to revisit evidence and the deliberations shifted from regurgitating the same points from the trial to examining possible alternatives. Slowly, one by one the jurors switched to a not guilty vote.
However, the last holdout didn’t seem too swayed by the deliberations. He held firm on his guilty stance despite never providing any concrete reasoning. It was clear that something else was influencing his decision. It wasn’t until at the very end when he looks at an old family photo do we make the connection of any possible personal discrimination.
This movie exemplifies the dangers of our behavior. The defendant in this case was lucky that a juror raised the possibility of reasonable doubt and that the deliberations that came from it helped absolve any discrimination held against him. Imagine if the juror, who at the time didn’t have any strong arguments to support his not guilty vote, didn’t raise his hand. The defendant would be sent to his death. What Juror No. 7 did showed why it’s important for us to express our opinions because we never where it may lead.
I think you make a great point about people not wanting to create conflict by disagreeing with others. Often we don’t want to make ourselves un-liked or ostracized as an outsider of a group – even when it’s a jury where it doesn’t matter if they like you or not! It is incredibly hard to sway a group of 11 other people who disagree with you. Juror 8 was only able to change the direction of the deliberation because he was very strategic and thoughtful in his approach. For example if he had been dead set on “not guilty” and tried to bully the other jurors with passion but no substance (in a similar manner to Juror 3), the other jurors probably would have shunned him further, disparaged him, and become even more set on “guilty”. He had to gain the respect of the other jurors, use slow, careful arguments, and create space for dissent in order to sway the whole jury.
Similar to many of my fellow colleagues, the last time I saw “Twelve Angry Men” was over a decade ago. It was interesting to view the film again with specific analytical questions in mind.
The film seems to be a survey of discourse and rhetoric methodology. We begin with a very organized discussion led by the jury foreman, where each juror is allowed to present his argument. However, very soon, the deliberations have turned to relative chaos, with some jurors interrupting one another with heated personal attacks while others are having side conversations, not paying attention at all.
There seemed to be a very clear treatment of emotion throughout the film. Henry Fonda’s calm, yet persistent leadership and guidance eventually led to saving a man’s life, while the irascible, disagreeable Juror #3 (played by Lee J. Cobb) seems to be the epitome of a character flaw. By the end of the film we learn that he is letting his personal experiences as a frustrated father cloud his rational judgment.
Of course, we never actually know if the defendant was guilty or innocent, but it is implied that Henry Fonda’s character has led the group to the highest form of rational thought – truth – or at least to proof of reasonable doubt.
On a side note, it was fascinating to observe how the jurors were so flippant about seeing a man sentenced to the death penalty. The film had its premiere in 1957, and I wonder if it had been made in current times if the treatment of the death penalty would have been different given the declining public opinion of this sentence?
According to Gallup, support for the death penalty is higher now than it was in 1957! http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx
I think you touch on a great issue and that is personal experiences we bring into every decision making process, in both our personal and professional careers. I think its important to understand backgrounds of our co workers and fellow classmates to better understand where our choices come from.
The leaders of the mob mentality will often have the greatest influence on a situation. The assigned jury foreman gave up rather quickly in his role as leader. Had Henry Fonda’s character been the assigned foreman from the start it may have changed the dynamics of the situation. He was able to keep calm and keep his emotions primarily in check. This, as you mentioned, worked to facilitate a decision that would otherwise never have happened.
It is also interesting to see how your opinions of the film can change over time. It does make you wonder how this type of case would have been handled today. The jurors were highly unconcerned about the consequences of their decision. Today, as you mention, there is great deal of controversy surrounding the death penalty. Committing a crime in Texas is going to give you a different option of sentencing than committing a crime in New York.
oops. it seemed to have flipped my user photo there, sorry!
The movie, 12 Angry Men, reminded me of the many injustices that we continue to witness today among the Black and Brown Americans of our society. Issues such as racism, classism, agism, are all issues that we, the conscientious people, continue to fight. The remake of this film was released in 1997 with some differences such as the young boy in the 1957 version was an ethnic white male which to me, was symbolic for the some the ostracized Italians and Irish people experienced during that era. Now? That young fellow represented the many atrocities that Black/Brown human beings continue to endure. I will not compare the experiences between other ethnic whites and that of Black Americans but I just thought that it was quite interesting that the professor choose the older version verses the newer one. I think it may have to do with the fact that Professor Hoffman wanted to keep or attempted to keep the focus on the process of deliberation and how our own experiences, background, and perceptions of others has a tenancy of taking the front seat in the judicial decision-making process. So, for the purpose of the class assignment I will attempt to keep my attention to the questions asked but the white supremacist attitudes that screamed at me could not be ignored.
In the jury deliberations the policy is that a foreperson is selected. The person should be fair and impartial in order for the outcome of the procedure to be just. Their responsibility is to set boundaries in order to prevent maltreatment of others. Using numbers verses using individual names gave everyone a sense of confidentiality but it also allowed for the jurors to hide behind their number.
For some individuals who are not conscientious would allow their reason to outweigh the evidence. For some, personal emotions can get in the way of making the right decision regardless of it’s importance. The voting procedures were important in order not to allow the men’s opinions to be influenced by the others. For example, when the 12 Angry Men were asked to cast their ballots by show of hands, permitted everyone in the room to know where each individual stood. The second ballot was cast in secret which I thought was a great choice due to the heavy bullying being orchestrated by many in the group. This tactic allowed those that suffered from weakness to feel safe in coming forth with their true opinion.
It takes courage to be an individual to be first and/or second to set forward when surrounded by negativity that targets to ridicule. I found that the speaking procedures in this film were important as well. It allowed for everyone to be heard which kept it honest and it also kept the circle of men organized. At first the emotional factor played a key role to their initial decision but when emotion meets rational I would expect that an intelligent human being would more than likely listen to their head rather then their emotional dissatisfaction.
Inclusiveness only existed for those that related to one another. Those men that felt that they came from the same source or background were more dependent on each other for support which helped fuel their animosity towards those individuals whom they did not consider to be on their same class. The knowledge these 12 Angry Men shared came from personal accounts, some of which where able to distinguish between their subjective and objective experiences. The subjective experiences were based on emotional information where as the objective were personal accounts. The example would be based on the scene where one of the jurors stated going out and buying the same knife in the same neighbor which gave him personal knowledge through his objective experience. Expertise, plays a heavy hand at coming to a conclusion. Experts have degrees that prove that they are proficient in a specific area and are usually called upon to help prove cases. Without expertise everyone thing else is a matter of opinion. Fortunately for this young man, logic and rational were the principle elements that helped him win the verdict of not guilty.
can someone tell me what the password to the read is? I’m having trouble. Thanks!
Hey Soraya the password is : Deliberation , I believe. 🙂 Can someone correct me if am wrong?
thank you
I loved this movie – there is so much to unpack. I have been thinking a lot about:
Reasoning and evidence: The information provided about that evening was incomplete, and the jury was only allowed to consider what the prosecution and defense presented – they did not have the option to ask for more information or to discuss connections between the information with the prosecution or defense. Accordingly all the jurors made unconscious assumptions about the information that was missing and the connections between the facts that lead them to different conclusions. For example Juror 3 continually posited that any omitted information must have hurt the defense and so interpreted these gaps as further proof of the defendant’s guilt. The different value systems of the jurors were very significant factors in how the jurors made sense of the incomplete information they were provided. Juror 8 pushed the other jurors to be more methodical in analyzing the facts and connections between them. Only when they deliberated together were they forced to vocalize the unconscious assumptions they had made that lead them to different conclusions and confront that their assumptions often went in the face of logical possibilities.
Rules and procedure: Because this decision required consensus, it gave each person an enormous amount of power. (If they only needed a majority, the move would have been about 5 minutes long!) Juror 8 took the first step in going against the popular consensus, and thus opened up the possibility for others to do the same. He then used his power to require the group more carefully consider the facts and empowered all of the other jurors to independently participate in this analysis and vote their conscious. Juror 3 also used his individual power in the voting process, but he tried to shame and disempower the other jurors in the process. Though the process itself was very open and empowering, it mattered more how the participants interacted with that process.
Demographics: The class tensions in the jury were palatable and had a huge impact on the deliberations. The different backgrounds of the jurors affect how they want to be perceived by their fellow jurors, how they view one another, and how they viewed the defendant. Many of the wealthy jurors wanted to distance themselves from the defendant and remarked often on how they looked down upon poor people with pity or disdain. However by the end, the obvious bigotry of Juror 3 became too much for any of the jurors to stomach, and he was isolated for his hateful speech. I wonder if the other jurors would have been more forgiving toward Juror 3’s classism if Juror 4 had not been present. In addition Juror 4’s unique knowledge of switchblades, which definitely influenced the outcome, that was only known to him because of his class background.
Hey Sarah:
Thanks for your post. I agree with the point you make about the verdict needing a full consensus. It it weren’t for that, the boy would have been sent to the chair without a doubt. There was soo much evidence that wasn’t discredited until it was discussed by juror 8.
Sarah I enjoyed reading your post and I also love this movie. I agree that the social economic/demographics of the jurors’ had a huge impact on how they deliberated and the final vote given to the judge. In the beginning all but one juror walked into the deliberation room knowing what they were going to vote. If it wasn’t for juror # 8 standing up for what he believed to be true then this jury would of done the young Hispanic boy a disservice.
It was clear the presumption of innocence until found guilty was not adhered to at the start of deliberations. In fact the majority of the jury started at a place of guilty until proven innocent.
Speaking procedures varied throughout the film, but most apparently juror #1 took a leadership role to move proceedings along. Juror # 8 took an informal leadership role by being assertive and expressing his doubt of guilt about the defendant. Emotions clearly played a role in the speaking procedures, at points in the film various jurors would become overwhelmed with a wide range of emotions and either speak or yell angrily out of turn. When emotions were high and people spoke out of turn it gave insight about individual jurors and opened up the conversation. As an example, the juror at the end realizes his anger is misdirected and he is real upset about his own relationship with his son, which leads him to change his vote of guilty to not guilty
Voting was done in various ways, secret ballot, hand raising, going around the room and stating the vote. Voting secretly seems to be the best option, it was apparent when they voted by hand raising that others were looking around to either judge or for approval from he others.
Juror #8 acted as the defendant’s attorney he expressed his doubt then preceded to carry the role of raising doubt through presenting reasoning and evidence. At the start of deliberation blinded by prejudice many of the jurors presumed the defendant was guilty. The jury was made up of middle class white men, and thus the jury is not inclusive and is not representative of the defendant’s peers. Without a doubt the jury was affected by demographic composition. many of the jurors consistently used the term “those people” which is derogatory and expressed preconceived notions about people from the slums. If it wasn’t for the juror #8 that stood his ground and pushed for discussion the boy would of for sure been found guilty.
Hi. I think you are right that most people work from a guilty until proven innocent mindset, despite the burden of proof being on the prosecutor. With a trial like this one, where the defendant was a minority and the jurors were white men there is an undeniable bias, even if it is unconscious. I think we see this a lot in our society in racially charged cases such as Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Eric Garner.
In June last year I became an American citizen. Last week in mail i received my first “jury duty” letter. Watching ’12 Angry Men’ was interesting as my jury date is quickly approaching.
This movie is a great insight into the American legal system and the importance of the concept of reasonable doubt.
There are several key method of communication that were essential in allowing for an honest and lively debate, that ultimatley saved an innocent man’s life.
Self appointed leader Juror #1 helped establish a method of communication that allowed everyone at the table to take turns talking. Although the rule was broken many times during heated debate, it allowed for everyone to understand their opinion matters.
Although most jurors quickly agreed that the defendant was guilty, it was the rule of unanimous vote that kept the debate going.
If the majority had the deciding power, the group would never take time to thoroughly investigate all the evidence.
Requiring absolute majority is not always applicable to other group work scenarios at our jobs, government or policy deciding arenas, it is interesting to see how jurors came to agreement the more they deliberated.
Secret ballot voting was another effective method that allowed juror to voice their opinions without fear of being judged.
Fonda’s character throughout the film delivers a sense of calm deliberation that creates an environment of open dialogue and communication. However some of the best breakthroughs in the movie come from emotional speeches and heated debates. Its important to observe the strength of emotion and personal experiences in decision making process.
This made me wonder what this debate would have been like had this movie been shot today, how would having more women on the jury make a difference. Gender or racial diversity would make for a better quality debate?
Another interesting contribution to the direction of the debate was the time/ conditions constraint. The summer heat that increased the pressure, small room, as well as time, and knowing that no one can leave until they reach a consensus, all played a part in creating an intense deliberation process.
I found ’12 Angry Man’ to be an excellent insight into human psychology and a great movie for everyone as it is part of our civil duty to partake in our legal system.
Hi n.c. Congratulations on becoming a citizen and soon to be serving your first jury duty. One of our classmates posted that they felt everyone that serves jury duty should watch this movie, I have to agree. If I have seen this movie before, I don’t remember it. It is a wonderful portrayal of the need to remember that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. You made an interesting point in your post that I hadn’t thought of while watching the movie. You pointed out that you noticed “the best breakthroughs in the movie come from emotional speeches and heated debates.” I thought of Henry Fonda’s character throughout the movie and wondered if I could or would be so strong and calm to stand alone against the group. I feel his ability to say he simply wasn’t sure of guilt allowed others the time to really think through and deliberate.
Hey Nikolina !
Thanks for your post. I wondered the same things about how jury selection would have effected the verdict at the beginning of the movie had there been women or different ethnicity’s included. I think having a more diverse jury allows for a better deliberation process. Congrats on becoming a US citizen, I remember standing there taking the oath once too 🙂
I agree with Nikolina’s point on the strength and significance of emotion during the deliberation. Regardless of all the facts and evidence presented at the trial, emotion played a role in the discussion and eventual outcome. Emotions and personal experiences always play a part and we must be aware of them, especially when determining the fate of another.
What if? Those two words kept repeating in my head throughout the movie.
What if Juror #8 wasn’t serving on this trial? It could have easily been another person through the jury selection process. And what if that other someone had an angry and closed-minded disposition like Juror #3? The 19-year-old defendant would have swiftly been whisked to the chair, even though, as it turned out, he really may have been innocent. Researchers claim they calculated 4.1% of death row inmates are wrongly convicted in a National Geographic article I recently read (link below). That’s disturbing.
Did anyone listen to the Serial podcast? Reporter Sarah Koenig reviewed a 15-year-old murder case in which the accused, Adnan Syed, claims he’s innocent to this day. Over the 12 episodes of the podcast, evidence and testimony used in the court case that convicted Adnan was looked at from different perspectives. Koenig took listeners on a winding, murky ride because with each new perspective the evidence and testimony’s meaning changed. It was a perfect example of how easily evidence can be misconstrued. Given this, it’s incredibly important that jury members keep an open mind when deliberating. Everything should not be taken at face value, but rather questioned and explored.
An open mind is important not just when looking at evidence, but also when considering the accused. Stereotypes and prejudices were rampant during the deliberation in 12 Angry Men. Some of the jurors seemed ready to convict based on prejudice alone: the defendant lived in the slums so he was obviously a terrible human being. These assumptions got in the way of clear, rationalized thinking. Emotion also played a big part, particularly demonstrated by Juror #3 who, as it turned out, was actually angry over his strained relationship with his own son.
Ideally all jurors who serve would approach deliberation as Juror #8 did. However, we all know that it doesn’t, and won’t, work out like that every time. And so, there will continually be people who are wrongly convicted, even when there may be reasonable doubt hidden beneath the prosecution’s accusations.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/28/how-many-people-are-wrongly-convicted-researchers-do-the-math/
I was also thinking of what would have happened had Juror number 8 been someone else. As pointed out by Juror number 7 “This kid wouldn’t stand a chance with another jury and you know it.” It’s interesting to note the importance of jury selection and how one group can make an entirely different life altering decision from another group. It was also quite disconcerting that the severity of the punishment was not initially considered in the original guilty verdict. If it wasn’t for juror number 8 it is likely the defendant would have never had a chance.
Although 4% can feel like a small number, when you are discussing life and death it can be like 400%. Not only have you sent an innocent man to his death, perhaps the true criminal is still at large. It shows the importance of a jury needing to really listen and understand all the facts of a case.
One thing this movie demonstrates is that the desire to serve on a jury has not really changed over time. Most people do not wish to be there. They find it a huge inconvenience and their primary goal is to either get excused, or when faced with a case, get in and out of the deliberations as quickly as possible. The behavior of the jurors in this film remind us how important it is to take this role seriously and carefully consider the facts of the case while leaving our emotions and pre-conceived ideas aside.
Hi, Michelle. I think you are spot on about not wanting to serve on juries. I remember when I received a summons my first thought was “This is going to be a pain with work.” Ultimately the case was settled before I had to attend but I’d like to believe that I would have treated the trial seriously despite my disappointment at being there.
I contemplated that same thought, what if? I have seen people that clearly have their own opinions be silenced by the loudest most dominate person in the room. It is scary when you translate that situation into jury deliberations. It is necessary to take prejudice and personal emotion out of deliberation. It was interesting in the film watching the jurors and how they needed to work out their prejudices and emotions in order to be able to truly engage in the process.
I enjoyed watching 12 Angry Men and observing how 12 strangers, locked in a room came to a unanimous decision. It was interesting to note that Juror #1 placed himself at the head of the table and took his position as Foreman seriously. He lead the group in several votes but was not pushy or arrogant, simply acknowledged that he had a responsibility. The decision was made to sit according to juror number and speak in that order. The speaking order wasn’t always honored as some stronger personalities took over. However, everyone did have an opportunity to speak. I feel the rules for speaking were productive, although not always in order, everyman had an opportunity to speak. The last scene in the movie when the trial was over and the jurors were leaving, 2 jurors finally introduced themselves. I found that interesting – it pointed out that12 men who didn’t know each other, didn’t know each other’s names, had no need to impress or befriend each other should have the ability to speak freely without inhibition; however, it took hours to peel off all the emotion and prejudices.
Emotion played a strong role in the jurors’ discussions. Emotions involving not wanting to be locked in a room; being hot; wanting to be at a baseball game; prejudices; and personal family history among a few. Fortunately the character Henry Fonda played didn’t feel pressured to change his mind just because he was different. I feel that Fonda’s character displayed enlightened understanding. When the vote was 9-3 for acquittal one of the jurors became very emotional displaying his prejudices. I liked the way the producers handled this to show that the other jurors didn’t approve, each man individually removed himself from the table, separating himself from offensive behavior.
Hi Mary, I enjoyed reading your post. I agree that Fonds’s character displayed enlightened understanding. He did not want to rush into a vote. He understood his role and decision was an important one. Juror 8 also wanted the others to realize this and not rush into a decision without reflecting on the information given to them, studying the evidence, and discussing all the possibilities. I really enjoyed watching this character. He was calm, stood his ground, respectful, and genuinely wanted to hear what the others thought and why.
Emotion plays a role in all of our decisions and actions. Our emotions are rarely on our sleeves as adults. I like how the movie does not spell anything out for us. We have to deduce from Juror number 3 that the “facts” really have something to do with the picture he has in his pocket.
Mary, great post! I agree that emotion played a strong role in the juror’s discussions and eventually their decision to find the boy not guilty. The producers did a great job at showing the jurors’ reasons for wanting to vote and be done with it. Henry Fonda was a great actor for the part. He was true to himself and believed there was reasonable doubt. He was able to explain why he thought the boy could be not guilty while staying calm and collective. As deliberations continued that day we learned more and more about each juror.
Hi Mary,
Really enjoyed your write up about 12 Angry Men. I particularly enjoyed the last few lines that read:
“When the vote was 9-3 for acquittal one of the jurors became very emotional displaying his prejudices. I liked the way the producers handled this to show that the other jurors didn’t approve, each man individually removed himself from the table, separating himself from offensive behavior.”
This was a profound part of the film that I overlooked. It illustrated the progress of most of the jurors, as well as a more open minded approached they developed over the course of the film. This scene illustrates deeper understanding, appreciation, acceptance of differences, and disapproval of offensive language and behavior. To me it served as a microcosm of American history and our progress over the decades.
Thanks,
Jonathan
12 Angry men was a great movie that I would recommend people watch. It gives great insight on the psychology of human beings and how influence can over power the decision making process. At the start most all of the jurors were set on their guilty verdict, based on the evidence which was presented during the trail. As the movie progressed it was evident that there had been mistakes for evidence that was presented and it took one persons determination for justice to have all the other jurors see the errors.
Never having been a part of a jury it was interesting to see this point of view; the deliberation process. Movies and TV shows in general only depict the actual trail where they show evidence and witnesses on the stand, but they often don’t show the complexity of what happens behind close doors. The case in this movie was pretty serious; an adolescent life was on the line and had a poor careless decision been made without a conversation, the boy would have been sentenced to death. The pieces of evidence were only presented against the boy, no one was looking out for him, not even his own lawyer. The sequence of events and the times they happened, made more of an innocent verdict for the boy then a guilty one.
I think it was very brave of juror # 8 to stand up and actually try to see another view point, especially when he points out the abuse that the accused was subject to on a daily basis. Which instead of giving the boy a motive to kill his step father, explains why he wasn’t even home that night and ran away after their heated argument. He made points that others failed to see because of their preconceived notions about certain demographic groups. This was clearly expressed by juror # 10, who had set his mind about the boy based on what part of town the boy was from. I think his point of view, although annoying at some points, was realistic about how experience effects the judgements we make on other people. And even having a juror on the same comity from the same part of town didn’t change it.
How they tallied up the verdicts was also interesting. At first they just used a verbal verdict, followed by a raise of hands, a silent ballot and then an open ballot. It is important to note that when the silent ballot occurred is when the verdicts started changing. Everyone was hearing the same arguments from juror #8, but the safety of the silent ballot made it possible for some jurors to really express what they were feeling, but hesitated to say because they wanted to be part of the group in the beginning.
In all a great movie with very complex characters. I’ve never been called to stand for a jury duty, but when the time comes i’ll take a few pointers from this movie for the deliberation process.
Hi, Menendez, I really agree with you that Jury #8 is so brave to stand up to confront the judgment already made. Since most people in the society are inclined to follow the authority. They try to be regarded as cooperative and normal, decline to reveal their true thought. However, the essence of deliberation involves each individual’s contribution of original ideas. Also you mentioned the safety of the silent ballot which I agree with ,is important to make everyone express their real feelings given the hesitation existed in the beginning.
HI Desire,
I must say I really like your comment on the 12 Angry Men. I too agree that emotions were influencing the decisions of the jurors, but most importantly I too agree that experience and what we have experienced personally especially, has a lot to do of how we see things or how we feel about certain issues or people in this case. Also, I agree with what you noticed that it was very brave of juror #8 to stand alone against all the other ones together, and not just brave but noble also. And even the oldest juror points out his bravery when he says “it’s not an easy thing, to stand alone against the ridicule of others!” and it is very true, that is not a very easy thing and good for the defendant that Fonda was there otherwise there would have been an unfair biased decision by a preconceiving judgmental jury, something we still see happening nowadays unfortunately.
’12 Angry Men’ told the story of a decision making process involving a boy from the slums being accused of murdering his father. In the film we saw two different voting procedures. One where the views of the jurors were made public and the other being the secret ballot. When the men didn’t need to worry about public opinion there was a change in views, affecting the outcome. The jury was composed of 12 men with different backgrounds and personal experiences. Each person looked at the situation in a different light. Those differences definitely impacted the way the case was discussed and the outcome it reached.
One of the jurors decided to manage the group and speaking was to go in numerical order (based on juror’s number – #1- #12). The rules for speaking were counterproductive because they would constantly be broken when emotions came into play. Emotion often times clouded the jury’s judgment. The role of the jury is to look at the facts and make a decision, but as humans not every situation always appears so black and white, and personal experiences and feelings sometimes get in the way. I wouldn’t really say it was completely negative or positive, but more of a natural flaw. Throughout the movie there was a lot of back and forth between personal feelings and “facts”. Even those that claimed to be basing their decision on “facts” weren’t committed through-out the whole process. However, at the end we see that the jurors were able to put their emotions aside and vote not guilty.
Hi Danielle, For many people including myself I prefer the secret ballot. There were so many emotions, prejudices, and strong headed characters in this movie that might affect how others vote. If this was a real life and Juror 8 did not call for a secret ballot would the results have been the same? Having the secret ballot allowed for more time to reflect, get a better understanding, and explore the “what if’s” just as Fonda’s character kept asking.
Hi Danielle,
I liked your post. You brought up a great point about the two different voting procedures. When the jurors voted publicly, their votes were not sincere votes since they were feeling pressured by others around them. I think this is a good lesson for life in general. People are influenced by others and many times, people make bad decisions due to peer pressure. One of the lessons that I learned from this video is the importance of being an independent thinker and being in touch with yourself and your own thoughts as opposed to letting yourself get swayed by peer pressure.
I viewed 12 Angry Men and I really enjoyed it. I have never been on jury duty so It was interesting to watch the dynamics of this group. After watching the film and reading the two chapters assigned, I feel Henry Fonda’s character showed us a good example of how someone should conduct themselves when deliberating. In Political Communication and Deliberation, John Gastil states that “when people deliberate, they carefully examine a problem and arrive at a well reasoned solution after a period of inclusive, respectful consideration of diverse points of view.” Henry Fonda’s character was strong and willing to stand up for what he believes in, respectful, and he wanted to hear from others to assist him in making a decision. Unlike the other jurors who brought much of their personal emotions and prejudices into their dialogues and decision making, for example, the juror who had a bad relationship with his son. he was thoughtful, had a desire to understand the case and the facts, and willing to understand the thought process of others. He never attacked any of the other juror’s comments or belief’s. He actually helped some of the silent , timid jurors feel more comfortable speaking up.
I feel reasoning and evidence did play an important role in the decision making. The jurors tried to use reasoning to explain their verdict decisions. Examples include hearing the boy say that he will kill his father, or that the knife the boy purchased was unique and it was the same as the one found, or the old lady seeing the murder through the train window. The jurors felt that these were all believable reasons, therefore the boy must have committed the murder. Juror #8 helped to explore the possibilities. He did this by questioning what if or asking what does that show. He demonstrated the flaws in the evidence.
The voting procedures used in the film were open voting and a secret ballot. The only secret ballot done in the movie produced the second not guilty decision. This might not have been the case if it were not a secret ballot because of the pressure from the headstrong jurors.
Hi Maria, I like your explanation of Henry Fonda’s character. While watching the movie I wondered if I could or would be strong enough to stand against the group and question the evidence. Or, would I accept the evidence as given in court. You pointed out some of the evidence shown in court like the “unique” knife and the women seeing the murder through the L train. Would I sit in court accepting this evidence because it wasn’t disputed by the defendant’s attorney or would I critically think it through. This movie shows that we shouldn’t accept things at face value; but listen to all sides allowing others to speak and give their opinion. The more I think about this movie, the more powerful it is. I think Fonda’s character portrayed enlightened understanding as explained in out textbook. Enlightened understanding “is when people can explain not only their own views on these subjects but also the views of others with whom they disagree.” The ability to do that requires the ability to really take the time to listen, hear, and as you like to say “be present”.
Hi, Maria, I agree with the statement you made that deliberation involves careful examination and inclusive consideration of diverse points of view. However, in this case, jurors brought much emotion and prejudice in decision-making which should be overcome in order to reach a disinterested consensus without personal bias.
@mf160160 @md165823 You both address an interesting point that majority of the jury took what was said in court at face value. Most didn’t even consider that the evidence and testimony might be the slightest bit false. This was a reminder to always validate supposed facts on your own. Particularly for a jury, questioning facts will assuredly lead to an engaging deliberation in which members try to make sense of everything they heard during a trial. Had juror #8 not openly questioned the evidence, the rest of the jury would have never worked through the evidence to ultimately find there was reasonable doubt.
I really enjoyed reading your post. I agree in the importance of implementing a diverse Jury in order to cover different angles and point of view; however, I am not fully convinced that the Jury in 12 Angry Men lacked diversity. Although all 12 men appeared to be white working class men, they did in fact come from diverse backgrounds. One Juror admitted that he could in fact relate to the defendant, because he himself grew up in the slums. I think the goal of the movie was to portray cohesiveness and similarity through appearance; however, it is their diverse backgrounds that eventually allowed each Jury member to get involved and have a voice in the decision making process.
After watching the 12 Angry Men in class I decided to go home and re-watch it during the week to see if I could get a better sense of the actors. I had read the script of 12 Angry Men in high school but never saw the film. Racial prejudice was at the forefront of the deliberation because the boy was Hispanic and the jury was all-white and all-male.
It is clear that from the beginning of the play the defendant was believed to be guilty until juror # 8 planted a seed of reasonable doubt. At the beginning of the movie each juror spoke in the order of their juror number in order to maintain structure. With each juror speaking in order we learned many things about the defendant. There was an old man that lived below the defendant and heard him and his father arguing before running away. While the boy claimed to be at the movies when the murder happened, he was unable to successfully remember the names of the titles or who starred in them. A hard of seeing woman living across the street testified that she saw the boy kill his father through the windows of a passing train.
Emotion played a large part in the juror’s discussion. Davis, juror #8 remained calm, cool, and collected as he voted not guilty. Davis was the only juror out of 12 that believe the boy may be innocent. As he tried to prove his reasoning he never once raised her voice while the others were yelling over each other. As the deliberations went on Davis was finally able to convince each juror that there was enough reasonable doubt and there was a good chance the boy was not guilty. I believe that emotion played both a negative and positive role. On the negative side it brought out the irrational side of each juror but in the end the positive side brought each juror to a not guilty verdict.
I believe that the demographic composition of the jury affected what was deliberated on and how they reach their outcome. As mentioned above the defendant was a Hispanic boy and the jury was made up of all white middle-aged males. There was only one individual that had a similar background to the accused. For most of the movie the majority of the men were in agreement of the boys’ guilt. Most juror’s talked about the accused as a slob kid from the slum and had already believed the boy as guilty before they started deliberation.
Marginalized mind doesn’t mean the mind is marginal. The discussion began under the condition of unanimous consensus, as well as the “Not sure” presumption of Jury #8 who claimed it was not sufficient to make a judgment barely based on the statements of two witnesses.
Since Milgram’s Experiment shows that “people obey to authority either out of fear or out of desire to appear cooperative-even though at the expense of acting against their true judgment.” Therefore,secret ballot protected Jury #9 from being deterred by the majority in order to express his dissent, further to make the deliberation proceed.
During the decision process, reasoning and evidence plays a crucial role in making everyone positively join the discussion and making cognitive contributions in decision-making. “Ignorance is the ruin of states.” Without reasonable doubt, supposing let Jury #3’s opinionated emotion overwhelm to impose the idea of “an established fact” on others who’s indifferent to the deliberation such as Jury #7 and who’s indecisive and easily swayed between two sides such as Jury #12, impersonal consensus can never be achieved. Without emerging new evidence which revealed the falsity of 15 secs stated by the man living downstairs and the hollow marks on the female witness’s nose contradicted her claim that she saw the murdering scene “immediately”, rational Jury #4 can’t be convinced. Supposing let Jury #10’s biased speech dominate the decision-making, justice can never be realized.
No human being’s perfect, due to different backgrounds, individuals’ perspectives are inevitably limited. To some degree, the diverse composition of the jury from all walks of life ensures the consensus is more objective and disinterested.
I really enjoyed watching “12 Angry Men” again after more than 10 years since my last viewing. I think it is an important portrayal about an integral part of our justice system.
At first the jury members speak only through turn but when emotions started to rise the rules quickly faded away. I believe that there is a benefit to keeping an order to speaking because not everyone can keep control of their emotions and discuss matters without devolving into an argument. However, I also think that being too formal can be a drawback in these types of situations.
The first vote was done openly but then another vote was done secretly. The secret ballot allowed some members of the jury to break away from the pack or mob mentality. Each person has their own motivations (the heat in the room, the ballgame, etc.) and as the vote continues it becomes easy to imagine being swayed when it seems like everyone is thinking the same thing.
I think emotion played a large role in the movie, both positive and negative. At first, everyone is pretty cold and impersonal about reaching a guilty plea but as the deliberations continued and there were arguments people reconsidered their callousness and showed compassion. As I mentioned, the anger in the arguments are an important factor because they make the jurors realize how significant their task is. Of course, in a perfect world a rational debate would be had but we live in an imperfect world.
After the grand jury decisions in both the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases, it is easy to see the significance of the role that we play in our justice system. It is one of the most important duties we have and I wish everyone showed Fonda’s care in respect to it.
Hi Dan,
Wonderful summary of the film. I feel the same as you do about so many things on the film especially emotions. I too believe that emotions played a very important part on how everything worked out, both positive and negative emotions.
I think most of the jurors were being led by their emotions thus in many occasions influencing/blurring their decision making process and where they stood on the issue.
Also, I too believe on the great importance of the jury duty and how we should all respect it and take it very seriously much like Henry Fonda’s character. After all, good jurors make for fair and unbiased decisions.
I’ve seen 12 Angry Men multiple times, and every time I’ve taken something different from it. However, now watching it a bit older and with a bit more education and knowledge, I can truly appreciate how well made the movie is, and the psychology presented.
The procedures to govern who spoke in the film evolved as the deliberation process went forward. At the start of the film, there was at least some adherence to order, with jurors being asked to speak one by one by the foreman. This prevented interruptions, while also forcing others to listen to the respective juror’s reasoning.
When opinions starting changing, the rules for speaking were all but abandoned. At times, there were attempts by the foreman the bring back some semblance of order, but emotions took control of many of the jurors and shouting matches became the new rules of order. To a certain extent, these lack of procedural rules were both productive, and counter productive.
For one, more aggressive and forceful personality types came to the forefront, and has their ideas heard before those who were more on the shy and quiet side. This led to a bit of a chilling effect, as only those who were the most boisterous were able to get their ideas heard at first. As the movie progressed, however, it seems as though all the jurors came to recognize that meekness would not do them any favors if they wanted to have their opinions heard.
The benefit to such a style of deliberation is that interruptions were common between the jurors, and if an idea did not logically connect, it was quickly shut down.
In addition to the procedures for speaking, the procedures for voting also evolved with the film. The evolution of such procedures was a perfect example of group psychology, and the effect that group pressure can have upon individuals. The voting procedure started with hand raising, then turned to secret ballot, back to hand raising, and finally broke down into a system where jurors would simply claim whether they believed the defendant was not guilty or guilty somewhat at random.
The outcome was heavily affected by such change in procedures. At first, only one juror declared the defendant not guilty when voting was done publicly. However, once the voting turned secret, one juror changed his mind, presumably due to the fact that other jurors would not know his thinking was counter to that of the group. Although it was quickly revealed who voted in that manner, the moment of actual voting being secret certainly had to provide that extra incentive to vote in the way that particular juror wanted.
Once the voting procedures broke down, the group pressure returned. As more and more jurors publicly made their votes, it was harder and harder for certain jurors to claim that the defendant was guilty. Even the juror with the cold, who was one of the most ardent “guilty” jurors at first and appealed solely to emotion, changed his vote to not guilty seemingly without his own reason.
Speaking of the the ardent “guilty” jurors, it is important to note the demographic composition of the jury, and it’s effect on the preliminary votes. The continued use of the phrase “they” when referring to the defendant by certain jurors perfectly exemplified that those jurors considered the defendant as an outside group, and not an individual. Due to the fact that the defendant was of lower class, as well as of a different race, some members of the jury immediately correlated those traits with guilt.
Not having ever been in those situations, or having interacted with others of a different race, some members of the jurors would simply not be able to empathize or understand the plight of the defendant, and the challenges faced both inside and outside the courtroom.
I had never seen 12 Angry Men before unfortunately and I am glad I got to see it and I must say I really enjoyed it.
The movie begins with a jury being sent to make a decision, a decision on whether to punish a teenager who supposedly killed his own father. The reason behind it, according to the prosecution, was that the father was a violent one and had been abusing the boy for years until the boy had enough. The evidence was the knife that they found on the victim’s body that the a seller in the neighborhood testified that the defendant had a similar one. There were also witnesses supposedly; an old man downstairs who testified that he saw the boy fleeing the scene and a woman in her 40’s across the street who testified that she saw the boy kill his father through the L train when she couldn’t sleep and watched over the window.
The jury was made of 12 men, from my understanding 12 white American men, with one of them being an immigrant as he had an accent. So the jury was not diverse at all and many of the jurors were very judgmental and quick to come to conclusions when it came to the defendant who was, from my understanding, from a poor immigrant neighborhood. They jurors were of different background as for education, one was a lawyer, one an architect (Fonda himself) , one was a businessman and so on.
In the beginning they tried to take turns speaking as one of them took charge and was trying to assign everyone a turn to speak but that didn’t go very well thus soon after they were all speaking at the same time or just some talking too much and being to passionate about it and some caring very little and talking much less.
First thing they did was take a vote and to the surprise of many there was only one juror who wasn’t convinced the defendant was guilty. We all know that in order for a jury to reach a verdict there has to be a 12-0 vote, thus no wonder many of the jurors were very upset with Fonda.
There was a lot of emotion. Some were very angry as they really wanted to know what in the world could have made him vote not guilty. Juror #8 who voted not guilty seemed to be one of the few if not the only one who kept calm and reasonable throughout the whole movie.
I think the movie became even more interesting when juror #8 proposed a secret vote while he abstained and declared that he wouldn’t go against any decision. And then there were 2 votes not guilty and the anger of many escalated and many others started to express their ideas, their doubts and it was very touching because one by one, they proved the young boy’s innocence.
One instance I thought was so touching and so true to the reality we all live everyday is when the old man said: It’s not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others! referring to Fonda. He also said: It’s a very sad thing, to mean nothing! referring to the old man who testified that he saw and heard the boy flee the crime scene.
After that, every time they took a vote the numbers of votes increased in favor of the not guilty vote. One by one all the men starting thinking more, caring more and being more reasonable. However, I cannot help but wonder what if they had never had Fonda to cause them reach that point? There would’ve probably been a horrible quick and unfair biased and prejudiced decision like the many we see quite often unfortunately.
I think 12 Angry Men was a powerful movie as it treats a very powerful tool in our society, one we must not take for granted and I wish there were more jurors like Fonda who took jury duty with the same seriousness and care that he did.
Oriela,
I enjoyed your post. Very thorough. The part I found to be particularly meaningful and profound is when you said: “One instance I thought was so touching and so true to the reality we all live everyday is when the old man said: It’s not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others!”
I think this is not only an important observation of the film, but an important observation about our own lives.
Thanks for that!
Best,
Jonathan
I enjoyed re-watching the film 12 Angry Men. It was nostalgic for me since the last time I watched this movie in high school many years ago.
Looking at the film from a more analytical perspective taught me several things. These included:
1) The procedures that were used in the film to govern who spoke and the effect of emotion: This initially included speaking in turn in an organized fashion where all characters were listening to each other’s reasoning. However, this changed as the film progressed when opinions started to shift and more emotions got involved. The system of order was replaced by shouting where the type A personalities came to the forefront and the more reserved individuals weren’t able to get their opinions across as effectively. The positive effect of deliberating this way is that interruptions were common so if an opinion wasn’t sound, it was immediately dismissed.
2) The voting procedures used in the film to make decisions: This was fascinating to see, but it illustrated the effect that group pressure can have on the individual. Initially, the voting process began with raising one’s hand, it then transitioned to a secret ballot, and ultimately deteriorated to the point where the jurors would announce whether they believed the defendant was innocent or guilty in a random fashion. This resulted changes in procedure where jurors declared the defendant not guilty when voting was done publicly and then changed their opinion when the votes were done secretly. Once the voting procedures broke down, the group pressure returned.
3) The demographic composition of the jury and its effects on the outcome: An interesting observation was the continuous use of the word “they” when jurors referred to the defendant. This illustrated on the jury viewed him as an outsider and lower class. Some jurors immediately associated these differences with automatic guilt.
These observations give viewers a glimpse of the social dynamics and methods for deliberation in the late 1950’s and gives us a sense of how people communicate in a public setting. While some of these behaviors have evolved over the decades (i.e. open mindedness towards people of difference backgrounds, etc.), some of these principles (i.e. group pressure) still hold true today.