73 thoughts on “12 Angry Men”

1. The rules governing who spoke were very informal and not strictly enforced. One juror acted as the mediator and attempted to move things along by going around the table in an orderly manner, but this procedure was routinely interrupted by certain emotional characters. Emotion almost always served as counterproductive, and the emotions displayed were usually negative. The characters that expressed the most emotion had personal prejudices based on race, age, and immigration status. These characters eventually changed their votes to not guilty after a logical take down by the opposition. The emotional characters were juxtaposed with the two main logical characters. Henry Fonda and the stock broker represented the two main voices of rationality, and evidence and reasoning served as their guiding principles. The film shows the triumph of evidence and reasoning over the prejudices of emotion. Although the stock broker at first voted guilty, his commitment to fair evidence and reasoning led him to change his decision, once he had changed the two illogical emotional characters ultimately fell in line. Although the emotional characters claimed to base their decisions on “facts”, they were convenient assumptions that hid their overlying agendas, and their “facts” showed clear disregard to rationality and the deliberative process.

   1. I really like your point about the two rational characters on either side of the argument. I agree with you on that. I didn’t understand why it was taking the stock broker so long to change his mind until I realized that he was holding onto the most significant evidence of the eye witness to the murder. It wasn’t until they were able to disprove this evidence that he changed his mind. However, I don’t think that emotions were always a negative – it was actually some of the outbursts that exposed prejudices and discounted evidence.

   2. I think you made a good point that the jurors that expressed the most emotion was prejudice against the accused. However, i did not pick up on race and immigration status. I also agree that although the film showed prejudice,in the end, it was reasoning and evidence that helped all the jurors come to a final conclusion. It is inevitable that personal emotion gets in the way of making a decision base on just facts.

      1. Hey Jocelyn, I think Jake was spot on on how preconceived notions of race and immigration status were also blinding them from making rational decisions. Think back to when Juror 10 was ranting about how “they come here and think they can tell us how to do things” when number Juror 11, the immigrant watchmaker, made certain comments (I think it was the point in the film where Juror 11 made a comment that maybe Juror 7 didn’t know what reasonable doubt was).

   3. I agree with your points on the role of emotion in the jury’s deliberation. Emotions clouded the judgments of several jurors, as they only took the evidence that was presented to them at face value. To them, the evidence presented reinforced what previously held beliefs they had when they walked into the courthouse. These jurors did not wish to deliberate any further on the evidence, as it was what they wanted to hear. In our readings for this week, the author looks at the issue of close-mindedness and deliberation, and how it affects the process as a whole. I believe several of the jurors who were more emotionally charged perfectly reflect what the author discusses. However, when cooler heads finally prevailed (Think of when everybody turned their back to the juror who was prejudice towards those from slums), they were able to examine the evidence in a more rational matter. This made the deliberation on other issues such the older woman’s vision more fruitful. The film 12 Angry Men showed us how emotion can hinder deliberation from a public group. It can be hard enough for a deciding body to reach a consensus on a solution to a problem, but as displayed in the film, emotion can make individuals more entrenched in their views, and more hostile to other points of view if they become too invested in what they believe.

   4. I really like your last point. The men who based their decisions on facts really weren’t basing them on facts at all. The evidence was tainted by their own underlying prejudices. The “facts” were telling them what they wanted to hear, so (at first) they blindly accepted them as truth. This illustrates the idea that we should not automatically accept things that are presented to us as truth; we should always remain skeptical and examine it for ourselves.

   5. I agree that emotion served as counterproductive to the deliberation. Emotion really fueled the opinions and convictions of the jurors and continued to do so as they came to terms with the underlying reasons they belived so strongly in a guilty verdict. Had objectivity taken priority over emotion, the jurors may have been split to a larger ratio from the beginning of the deliberation proecess.

   6. The film 12 Angry Men illustrates the complex nature of deliberation. During the jury’s session, various issues with speaking and decision-making showed the lack of constructive deliberation that can define even the most formal institutions for decision-making. When the jurors began the deliberation process, the absence of speaking procedures led to heated discussion in which jurors spoke out of turn and cut off one another. A couple of the jurors’ attempts to establish a speak-in-line process helped maintain some order, but interruption and silencing often characterized the process. Even when the group tried to follow a procedure of speaking one after another, a few jurors did not fit into the norm of speaking.

      Evidence and reasoning were major parts of the decision process. The protagonist of the film heavily relied on evidence to convince the other jurors of his opinion that the defendant was not culpable. Instead of relying on the “facts,” the protagonist used logic to demonstrate how the witnesses’ testimony were at least questionable. His use of evidence and explication of that evidence revealed the weakness of witness testimony. In contrast, the jurors who believed the testimonial evidence of the case were trapped in their own thinking, sticking to what they wanted to believe from the case. Rather than being open minded to plausible alternatives, a few of the jurors irrationally believed otherwise. Numerous factors accounted for this bias, such as the inconvenience of staying to decide on the case, similar familial issues, racism, etc.

      On a related note, emotion was a primary influence among various jurors’ decisions to find the defendant guilty that clearly skewed their view of the “facts.” The one man who had not seen his son in years was seemingly convinced until the very end that the defendant was guilty. But he appeared to hold this grudge against the defendant as a means of being punitive to his own son, with whom he had had difficulties similar to the defendant and the defendant’s father. The emotion that played into many juror’s decisions provoked tension with those who viewed the situation through an objective point of view. The protagonist successfully broke down the barrier of emotion through listening and pointing to the irrationality of their reasoning. Hence, through slow, but intentional deliberation that allowed all members of the jury, the jurors were able to set aside emotions and see that the defendant could not be proven guilty.

2. You made some significant points. I believe that the bias and emotional displayed in this film reside in all people and revealed themselves once the jurors were placed under the pressure of deliberation. Many of the jurors didn’t really care about what happened to the young defendant and wanted to just accept the explanation of the prosecutor who put on the better argument. The majority of the jurors just wanted a quick decision so they could get on with their lives. The character protrayed by Henry Fonda was the driving force who took the whole process of deliberation seriously and forced the others to honestly look at the evidence, which was riddled with holes. This film demonstrated bias not only against the poor but age discrimination that was directed internally against two of the more senior jurors. There was also racist commentary directed at the Spanish jurors who was proud and hardworking. I really love this film because it depicts all the ugliness that that humans carry around inside. The triumph displayed in the end was how all the jurors were able to get past their own problems and belief to come to a fair evidence based decision.

3. Sorry about the grammatical errors. I will proof read my response next time.

4. The film 12 Angry Men was able to depict many aspects of communication and decision making, specifically as it relates to speaking procedures, the effect of emotions, and the role of a group’s demographic composition. The discussions in the juror room were led with some guidance by the self-appointed foreman at the beginning of the session, but this quickly led into a free for all with order being called for when things got out of hand or when it was time for a repeat vote. This lack of strict governing over who spoke was both productive and counter productive. It allowed all people to speak and voice personal opinions, and guttural reactions exposed underlying prejudices that impacted decision making. However, there were many moments of chaos when tempers flared, at times almost leading to physical altercations.

   While these outbursts of emotion were negative in the sense of maintaining peace and order, there were some positive aspects to them in that they proved some points being made. For instance, when the one juror yelled out, “I’m going to kill you,” this proved that this statement is not always meant in the literal sense. In fact, throughout the whole movie the idea of emotion teetered between positive and negative. The case for a not-guilty verdict was labeled as an “emotional appeal” with the implication that to change a vote would be to succumb to emotions rather than let fact and rationale dictate decision making. This “emotional appeal” had an additional negative connotation in the setting of a room filled with all men, where it could be perceived that letting your emotions take over takes away from your manliness. However, it became clear at the end that it was actually the final juror’s emotional connection to the case (his relationship with his own son) that caused him to hold onto the guilty verdict for so long. In the end, emotions maintained this dichotomy : while they had allowed for a further investigation of the case and ultimately opened the door to a non-guilty verdict, they were also the reason a juror was almost unwilling to change his verdict from guilty.

   Having an all male jury was seen not only as an influence in its negative connotation of an emotional appeal, but also as a source of competition. It seemed at times that those who wanted a guilty verdict were more concerned with losing and hurting their pride by admitting they were wrong than with actually producing a fair verdict. Other demographics also influenced discussion and how the final verdict was reached. For instance, the old man in the jury gave perspective on why and how the old man who lived in the building came up with his statement. Additionally, the juror who came from “the slums” discounted negative prejudices placed on kids from those neighborhoods and also provided insight on the use of switch knives, which was useful in examining eye witness statements. The different backgrounds of the jurors led to some conflicts in discussion, especially when racist and prejudiced remarks were a personal insult to other jurors. As stated in the movie, “prejudice obscures the truth.” The wide demographics of the jurors helped to expose the prejudices and biases that they had, helped the jurors come to a fuller understanding of the case, and ultimately helped change the verdict around.

   1. Your points on the structure of the jury and their process for decision-making are spot on. The deliberation process was very flexible and not especially structured. This was a double-edge sword for the jury as it provided a way in which each individual was able to voice his own opinion. However, this would obviously hurt the process as a whole when those who were more emotionally invested in the decision became hostile to opposing points of view. But as you mentioned, this flexible arrangement exposed those who clearly held prejudices, such as juror number 9, who spoke out against those who live in the slums.

      I also agree with your belief that the role of emotion did play a slightly positive role in the discussion process. Emotions held up the decision making process as the last few hold outs were entrenched in their own views. However, their emotions clouded their ability to debate, with the perfect example being the juror shouting, “I’m going to kill you.” That statement contradicted his earlier view that when the boy shouted that phrase, he meant it. In the end, the emotions of these jurors held on to was their unraveling in the debate.

      Another potential positive that came from the role of emotions was how thoroughly other members of this body examined the evidence presented to them. If not for those who were so emotionally invested in their own beliefs, Henry Fonda’s character and the other jurors would not have examined the evidence so critically. From that end, the emotions of some forced the other jurors to examine the evidence more intently, and demonstrate to these emotionally drive jurors that the boy should be acquitted for dubious evidence.

   2. At first I believed that emotion played a mostly negative role in the deliberation, the reason I stated this was because the jurors displaying the most emotion caused illogical outbursts. After reading your post I have realized that although these outbursts were crude, they did help contribute to the deliberative process. Ironically the emotional jurors ended up helping the not guilty cause. I agree with your assessment of the role of demographics of the jury. As in most diverse deliberative settings, diversity serves as a check on others prejudices and helps the unbiased facts reveal themselves.

      1. It is interesting to think about the emotional outbursts in a positive light. Like you, I thought that the lack of composure would be detrimental to the deliberative process, but that is no longer the case. Not only did the men who reacted based on emotion often times end up hurting their own cause, but it allowed the other men in the room to understand where they were coming from on a personal level. In a scenario where strangers are coming together to decide the fate of a person they do not know, it can be hard to understand and relate to your peers. By watching these men have emotional upheavals it gave the other men a greater understanding of each other and why people approached the same facts through different views.

5. The film 12 Angry Men is an excellent example of deliberation that shows the many aspects of the decision making process, both positive and negative, between a group of individuals. When it came time for the jury to reach a decision, they sat around a table with a mediator called the foreman, who effectively decided the course of action taken by the group. For the most part, the group was an open discussion with any man allowed to speak his mind. This had both its’ positives and negatives as it allowed every man to discuss their opinion. However, when emotions became too strong, the debates would get out of hand. This is where the Mediator would have to step in and calm the situation. In these times, the Mediator would call for a quick break. When they returned to the discussion, the Mediator would call on somebody to make a comment or speak their mind. Other times, the jurors would propose an idea to begin the discussion. These procedures provided flexibility in the flow of the discussions held, but was not very structured as the Mediator acted as an individual of last resort.

   The procedures for voting was organized in a similar fashion. To begin the deliberation, the jury held a vote to see where they stood on the death sentence. Throughout the process, it was an individual who proposed to the group whether they should hold another vote. The foreman would ask the group if there were any objections, and if there were none, then a vote would be held. This was also similar to other rules that were proposed. An individual would offer their idea, and the proposal would be repeated by the mediator. If the proposed rule was not greeted by an objection, the rule was accepted. A terrific example of this proposal process was when the group decided that if they did not reach a consensus by 7 PM, then they would begin the discussion of whether they were a hung jury. Just like their speaking procedures, the jury’s rules for decision making was less structured and offered more flexibility.

   The role of reasoning and evidence cannot be underscored. However, the definition of reasoning and evidence was distorted from individual to individual. In the case of Henry Fonda’s character, he used reasoning to question the “evidence” that was presented to him. This was contrary to many of his associates as at first, they reasoned that the evidence that was presented was concrete enough to sentence the boy to death. However, as the debate went on, several of Fonda’s colleagues followed his thought process. In other cases, two or three jurors claimed to be basing their decisions on “facts”, when in reality, these jurors were not committed to the most rational thought process. The most glaring case was the individual who wanted to see the accused voted guilty because of prejudices he had against those who lived in the slums. He claimed the “facts” supported him while in actuality, he just wanted to see an individual from the slums punished.

   The prejudices mentioned before led to some intense moments emotionally throughout the deliberation. The individual who was blatantly biased against the boy because he was from the slum was very bombastic. He was extremely loud and demeaning towards those who questioned him or his point of view. In this case, the role of emotion hindered the quality of the debate. In a similar instance, another individual had to be restrained from hitting Henry Fonda. The debate on the evidence had to be delayed because emotions ran too high. Both of these individual’s emotions clouded their judgement and rational evaluation, which made it that much harder to hold a quality deliberation between the jurors. In defense of the emotions held by several individuals on the jury, it forced those who were more level headed to make an even more firm argument in order to convince these irrational men. I guess from that point of view, it made the examination of the evidence that much more critical. It is from this critical evaluation that the jury found the evidence flimsy, and ultimately acquitted the accused.

   1. I agree that the because there were no specific rules or methods that were used when the jurors begun the deliberation process, it allowed them to be more flexible. Flexible in the sense that the evidences can be reevaluated. Another thing you brought up is emotion and it seem to play a important role. The evidence were often overlooked because some jurors fail to see the important details that they had missed from letting their personal feelings and prejudices clouding the facts.

      1. Thank you for your response. I agree that the deliberative speaking process was double-folded. I am trying to imagine how else the jury could have done decision making. Speaking out of turn was certainly disruptive to the process, but in fact the process itself was productive. It was not situation in which one person headed over others and chose who spoke. Rather, the jury used a flawed form of democracy that allowed each person to voice their opinion. And when a juror truly was disruptive to the process, he was excluded from it (i.e. when the elderly racist man realized he had to sit out of the group).

   2. I like your idea that ideas of evidence and reasoning were distorted. Many of the jurors took evidence to be a substitute for fact and this allowed them to believe that there was no reason for further examination or reasoning. However, Henry Fonda’s character realized that evidence is not necessarily fact and that if it is examined under a different lens can be proven wrong, or at least have its authenticity doubted.

      I don’t think that the jurors all were being irrational when they initially declared the boy guilty – they were just looking at the case in the most simplistic way without giving it any level of higher thinking. I do agree though that as more and more evidence was discounted, the jurors who maintained their vote towards a guilty verdict were letting their emotions guide their decision rather than their intellect and rationality.

      1. I think your point the the jurors weren’t being irrational with their original vote is an important one as far as setting up the rest of the deliberation. Henry Fonda agrees with the men in the room that they all heard the same information in trial, but then reminds them that it seems as though the boy on trial had a terrible lawyer. From that point on Fonda simply does the job that the defense attorney failed to do. Had the boy had proper representation in the first place the deliberation process would have been voided because most of the witness testimony would have been debunked. The middle portion of the movie had the same feel to me that My Cousin Vinny had when Joe Pesci begins to build up steam when defending his clients. In both movies it is clear that a good defense attorney will look to poke holes and expose flaws in evidence that prosecutors would like the jury to think of as solid facts.

6. There were no particular rules that governed who spoke in the film, 12 Angry Men. Anyone who had anything to say were free to express their thoughts on the case after hearing all the evidence presented to them.

   The rules for speaking seemed unproductive and the lack of civility for one another occurred due to this. Still, despite the disrespectfulness to one another, testimonies made by the crippled old man down stairs and the women across the street was reexamined. Therefore, the rules for speaking was unproductive and yet productive at the same time.

   When it comes to reasoning and evidence, all 12 jurors had different roles. Some jurors simply took the evidence given at the court room as the reason why the accused should be guilty. Some jurors thought the evidence needed to be looked at agin. Those who claimed that their decision was based on “facts” were not always rational in their reasoning because they let their emotion interfere.

   Emotion and personal prejudice played a major role in the decision making process. It definitely had a negative impact on the way jurors come to the decision. For example, the man that kept coughing was prejudice against those who were raised in the environment the accused lived in. Therefore, assuming that those who lived in those places are liars and always up to no good. The man allowed his own prejudice to interfere with his decision making process. The Angry guy who was always yelling had his own issues with his son and coincidently, the accused was a young boy that probably remind him of his own child, therefore inserted his own feelings towards the accused boy.

   Lastly, the demographic make up of all 12 male jurors had an important role in this trial.The juror consisted of all males and there was a strong need for who was right and who was wrong during the discussion period. Differences in the demographic composition in the jurors affected why it discussed the case and the outcome that was reached. For example, the architect who was the first person to vote not guilty. As an architect, he cares about the details. Or the old man who seem to catch details that others missed during the trial. He particularly noticed the crippled old man because he was an old man too. Therefore, the demographic composition of the jurors affected the outcome differently but positively.

   1. You bring up important points regarding the demographic make up of the jury. Each person brought their own personal experiences, genetic makeup, age, ethnicity, and family history to the table, and each of those factors was critical in bringing about the final decision. This was especially apparent where the different jurors were able to dissect and bring forward the flaws in the witnesses’ testimonies that the other jurors did not notice.

   2. I slightly disagree with your take on the rules for speaking, although the rules were very minimal they were clearly stated in the beginning of the film. The foremen acted as the mediator, with everyone going around the table in order and stating why they felt the defendant was guilty. As you stated this did not work very well, and Henry Fonda took a lead role in talking and explaining why he felt the defendant was not guilty.
      At first I also felt that emotions played a negative role for the reasons you stated, but after reading another classmates post I realized that the negative emotions helped turn others towards the not guilty side. This was evidenced when all the jurors stood away from the one juror who went on a rant about his son.

7. The film 12 Angry Men by Sidney Lumet shows the many ways in building a consensus but also the difficulties encountered in the process of jury deliberation. For speaking procedure, it was more of an open discussion with the burden of proof on the prosecution, so the people who found the young boy guilty were trying to convince Henry Fonda that the boy was guilty and Fonda was showing flaws in the prosecutions case to cast reasonable doubt. There were times where emotion got the better of the jurors especially juror 2 and 9 who brought their biases to the argument. For the most part, Henry Fonda (juror 7) was calling into questions the evidence and witness testimony presented and the one taking it the most serious. After all it was a boy’s life on the line.

   The jury was composed of white old men who came from different socioeconomic backgrounds and brought their biases to the table. The foreman (juror 12) explained what they were voting on and made decisions on a consensus bases. Individuals also called for a vote when they felt they needed to change their vote as was the cases with juror 11, who saw reasonable doubt when reexamining the evidence. The foreman served as the mediator by moving the discussion toward a vote enforcing the rule minimally. There was order in the beginning but as the discussion heated up, there were times when the two sides came with blows as was the case with Fonda and juror 2 with the foreman having no say in keeping the order.

   Evidence and reasoning are important factors in any decision and it shows in 12 Angry Men how each juror reasoned the evidence presented before him. Henry Fonda and Juror 3 were the only ones looking at the case through the evidence presented before them. From the beginning, Henry Fonda had reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the boy due to the weakness of the case and testimony while the juror 3 was convinced of the boys guilt on the witnesses’ testimony. Through the examination and recreation of the testimony, many of the other jurors began to question the witnesses and evidence presented to them. Like the recreation of the old man’s testimony, it showed how small details of time can affect the credibility of a testimony. Emotions are present in our daily lives and affect how we make decisions, which was prevalent throughout the movie. Many of the jurors had biases or just didn’t care about the case. For two of the jurors, 2 and 9, voting guilty was based on past experiences, which brought out the worst in them during the discussions. Seeing how the proceeding were going, Juror 9 goes into a rage about people from the slums (background of the young defendant) and everyone turns their back on him, which showed how his prejudices affected his ability to make a moral decision especially on the matter of life and death.

   1. I think you made a great point about how emotion effected jurors 2 and 9 in their view of the case. Instead of looking at the case objectively, they let their own bias cloud their judgment. I also agree that the increased emotion lead to a breakdown in order, ultimately creating a less effective deliberation.

   2. I agree with your assessments of some of the characters. I loved the movie and saw things this time that I didn’t see before.

   3. I agree with you Tenzing. I think there was a great deal of bias and preconceived notions from the jury. For example, the Juror that undermined the young boy because of his home environment. He believed that because he was one of “those” people who lived in the “slums” he was naturally a criminal and more prone to violence. I think that our environments help shape the person we are, but they are not the defining factor in establishing who a person is and the person they will ultimately become.

8. In the film 12 Angry Men, we see how a deliberation can be affected by numerous variables. Originally the jurors agreed to sit in the order of their juror numbers and speak in that order. As time goes on, we see a breakdown in this rule. When the discussion becomes more hostile, a louder juror was able to speak over or cut off a quieter juror. A majority of the time, the quieter jurors could only be heard if a louder, more dominant juror demanded the opposing side to listen. This breakdown of structure leads to off topic arguments as well as a more counter-productive deliberation process.
   Throughout the film jurors use either an open or a closed voting method. The closed vote ends up being more effective in obtaining a balanced verdict because the jurors are able to express their opinion with out condemnation. The ridicule heaped on those with a minority opinion constitutes tyranny of the majority exactly what the process of the law seeks to eliminate. Instead of the jurors evaluating the arguments in a balanced manner, the number of guilty votes is used by the majority as evidence in itself.
   The common theme between the problems with the voting and deliberative procedures is the effect that emotion had on the juror’s opinions and the way that these opinions were expressed. Towards the end of the movie, it seemed as if anger and pride were the primary determinates in a few jurors votes. As the deliberation progressed emotions were heightened. Sometimes, when jurors disagreed, civil boundaries were crossed and they would attack each other on a personnel level. This negatively affected the deliberation process between the jurors. An example of this is when a juror goes on a bitter tirade expressing his preconceived notions of “those people” similar to the defendant. When he his done, he realizes that his emotions have gotten the best of him and he has lost the respect and influence of the other jurors. In contradistinction to the angry jurors, Henry Fonda’s ability to control his emotions gives more credence to his viewpoint, ultimately swaying the jury in his favor.

   1. I agree that deliberation can be affected by multiple variables. It shows that emotions can greatly affect how a decision is made.

   2. You make some great points, but I think the open voting method was just as effective as the closed method. While I believe the closed method enabled Henry Fonda to gain that crucial second “not guilty” vote, that voter quickly identified himself and the reasons he changed his mind. Because the ballots did not include the voter’s reason for voting “not guilty,” the person was basically forced to speak up–we saw this specifically with those who voted “not guilty” early on in the movie. Also, once a second “not guilty” vote came in, the jurors became more open to challenging those in favor of a guilty verdict and the use of the closed voting process appeared to be more of a formality.

      1. Some good points, Jennifer. I think that both voting methods were effective for different purposes. Initially one may not think that an open-vote scheme would be appropriate in a jury’s decision-making process. However, if only a closed-vote was used, it seems likely that the decision would have been stalled, or the defendant found guilty, since many of the jurors would not have felt the pressure to reconsider their vote.

   3. The idea of emotion and personality is very important because as you mentioned, some of the jurors were in the background due to their personalities and others with stronger personalities such as juror 2 and Henry Fonda took over the discussion for the two opposing views. With the idea of an open or closed voting, 12 angry men showed subtly how some of the jurors such as 1 and 4 went with the pack mentality even though they couldn’t give a proper reason to why they voted that way.

9. The movie 12 Angry Men showcased just how difficult the jury process can be and how deliberation can be successful while still being emotionally and even physically draining. As the men first settle down in the room there is a light hearted environment as people exchange pleasantries and offer innocuous statements about the weather. The men are all respectful of each other and agree to sit in the order of the juror numbers for the sake of simplicity. The first ballot is even cast openly in an effort to expedite the process and to let the room know where everyone stands. It is only after the initial conflict that the true character of the men is tested as well as their civility.
   As the deliberation begins in earnest the characters begin to show why they are swayed one way or the other and how even those of the same opinion can arrive at it in completely different ways. On the first pass around the table Juror 2 declares that he is voting guilty simply based on feeling while Juror 3 makes it clear that he will be voting based on fact. This comes back into play as the movie reaches the climax because Juror 3 can be shown the error of his ways and accepts it, while Juror 2 can simply not handle having been wrong and breaks down. Juror 3 displays little emotion or demeanor (the single bead of sweat being the only break in his collected nature) throughout the entire movie yet he is just as steadfast in his guilty vote as those around him who are boisterous and confrontational to others.
   The confrontational nature of jurors 2 and 10 also help to highlight the role that civility must take in a stressful deliberations. There are numerous times the two men are scolded by the others for letting their emotions get the best of them and for trying to intimidate other jurors with their volume, tone, or words. It is telling of how important the rest of the jury believes the process to be as they shun juror 10 during his tirade about how people like the defendant simply can not be trusted and how they are beneath the rest of them. The actions of the men to simply ignore juror 10 rather than engage his hateful rant shows how the loudest voice in the room is not always they most important.
   The deliberation process for a jury is a stressful one and when a death sentence is on the line it can be made even worse. In 12 Angry Men we see the jurors transform from a group of men who are polite and open about their voting while remaining calm, into a tense group with secret ballots and confrontations that almost become physical. As jurors wrestle with the deliberations and eventually come to their conclusion it is interesting to watch them deal with their own feelings while trying to focus solely on the facts.

   1. agree with you Matthew. I think it really challenging and emotional being on a trial, especially when there is a potential death sentence on the line. It really is up to these twelve people to decide the fate of this young boy and that can be very stressful. It is easy to see why they went from polite and to calm to high tempered and even physical because of what they were asked to decide. Overall, when people are put in this position, it is difficult of them to keep their personal views or emotions out of the case and focus solely on the facts.

   2. I agree with you Matthew. I think it really challenging and emotional being on a trial, especially when there is a potential death sentence on the line. It really is up to these twelve people to decide the fate of this young boy and that can be very stressful. It is easy to see why they went from polite and to calm to high tempered and even physical because of what they were asked to decide. Overall, when people are put in this position, it is difficult of them to keep their personal views or emotions out of the case and focus solely on the facts.

   3. I agree with you that jury deliberation is a a stressful process made worse by a death sentence vote. Juror 2 and 10 actions in the face of mounting evidence of reasonable doubt gives an insight to how jurors must wrestle with these biases that they bring while looking at the case objectively on the bases of the fact presented to them.

   4. I love your point about the jurors turning on juror #10 after his out of control tirade. This was truly the turning point in the film, as it was the point where everyone finally understood that they had been convinced through passion and charisma, rather than by the facts and logic of the case. Up until that point, juror #10, although not loved by all, still had many in the jury who still respected him and followed him. But once the tantrum took place, he lost any respect he had, and it became clear to everyone that it was more important for them to be looking at the evidence then listen to someone who was clearly only motivated by personal hatred.

10. 12 Angry Men is voted as one of the best movies of all time for two reasons: the direction and the realistic issues that the movie put forth. When 12 jurors are assigned the responsibility of deciding the fate of a man in what is referred to, multiple times as an “open and shut case”, they are required to do so without any doubts about his guilt and what seems his inevitable death sentence. The entire movie is completely dialogue-based; shot in a single room making it seem as if it was a real discussion. The ways in which the characters speak during the discussion define their personalities, personal prejudices, bias and attitudes towards things for the audience. Juror #8 being the only one insisting on giving the guilty a fair chance to prove his innocence portrayed empathy, persuasion, counterarguments and logic which appealed to different Jurors in different instances.

    The outcome of the movie portrayed how important it was for the jury to weigh all the possibilities before passing a verdict. The idea of preliminary voting before starting the discussion was crucial in shaping the outcome of the verdict. The Jurors portrayed in the movie are seen taking votes after every set of arguments and counterarguments to understand where the Jury stands. The fact that the accused was already moving towards a death sentence and the fact that the jury’s decision significantly affected this instills one’s faith in the Constitution.

    Evidence that the jury was presented with pointed towards the accused as guilty, however, as the discussions go on, one begins to understand that even the most solid piece of evidence has its flaws and can be deceptive. The most rational points raised in the discussion were apparently by Juror #8, who denied voting guilty because there was a scope of reasonable doubt, even though the evidences were against the accused.
    One of the most crucial parts to be observed in the movie was the way in which past experiences, bias and denial shaped the opinions of the Jurors who were entrusted with the life of a young man. Most of the instances where jurors expressed an opinion due to their emotional reservations prove almost irrelevant to the outcome of the case at hand. There is a noticeable demographic imbalance considering the fact that the jury comprised only of men. This has been pointed out as a flaw by most of the people, however, in my opinion the arguments and the points on which the outcome was based on, was the prime focus of the movie and the jury portrayed just that. The movie in its rawest form focuses upon the importance of fair trial to the accused and the need for any jury settling on a verdict to grant the defendants, the benefit of doubt in the beginning

11. In the beginning of the film, 12 Angry Men, eleven of the twelve jurors enter the deliberation room with preconceived notions. They believe the boy is guilty because they evidence they were presented did not prove otherwise. However, Juror Eight could not knowingly send a young boy to prison, and essentially ending his life, without some formal discussion. He believes the boy’s life is worth at least an hour of their time, if not more. To begin the discussion, Juror One takes on the self-appointed role of “foreman”. Under this role, he attempts to establish a formal procedure to govern who spoke. To speak, the men sit in order, by jury number, and each state their reasoning behind their guilty vote, and hopefully persuade Juror Eight to change his vote. At first, this procedure is successfully, however, it quickly becomes counterproductive when emotions become involved. A juror may become enraged and speak out of turn when someone makes a statement that he does not agree. It was more challenging to follow procedures when everyone was overcome with emotion, at these times the foreman would have the men take a break and calm down before continuing deliberation.

    The main procedures for voting were formally raising one’s hand, stating one’s vote orally out loud, or anonymous written ballet. A vote was called by various jurors throughout the movie. A vote was typically called after times of disagreement, or high emotion, to see who had changed his mind. Before each vote, the foreman would ask the group’s permission, as well as any objections, then take a count of each person’s view. Because votes and decisions were often made during periods of tension, it was important that there was a formal procedure to keep things in order. Likewise, after the oral votes, most jurors were asked to support their decision with a reason. These reasons, such as the testimony of the older man who said he saw the young boy running down the stairs, are put into question by members of the group and ultimately tested out by the jurors. After each vote, a new theory or pieces of evidence is tested by the group and leads to more and more doubt amongst the men. Essentially, the review of evidence and emotion of these men saved a young boy from his death.

    It seems as though the jurors received a very basic and surface level description of the evidence. When Juror Eight questions the evidence, such as the testimony of the woman, he wants convince the other jurors that there is a possibility of human error. At the same time, everyone else looks at the evidence as “facts”. They believe the woman because she said she saw the murder happen. However, the woman states that she says she sees the murder happen outside of her window in the middle of the night. When the jurors realize that she wears glasses, but not did not wear them in court, it was only logical to assume she was not wearing her glasses in bed that night. For those committed to the “facts”,” this was a vital piece of evidence in the trial and seemed reasonable at first, but quickly changed when the men reviewed the evidence.

    Emotion played a vital role in the film. It is inevitable to not display emotions in a trial, especially one with someone’s life one the line. One person who expressed a great deal of emotion was Juror Three, he too was a father of a young boy who could have easily been in the defendant’s shoes. Throughout the deliberation, his temper often got the best of him and it seems as though he made his decisions based on his personal relationship, or lack thereof, with his son. Although anger is not the best form of self-expression, the release of emotion seemed to be helpful for him, as well as the other jurors. It allowed them to break free of their preconceived notions or personal beliefs and make a decision based on the deliberation and what they viewed as just.

    1. You made a great point about how the jurors initially viewed the evidence on a very basic level. Until juror 8 questioned the strength of the evidence, it seemed as if the other 11 jurors did not even consider reevaluating the prosecutions case. The closer examination of the evidence is what eventually swayed those jurors who were committed to “the facts”.

       1. Robert Tulman, I concur with what you’re saying and would take it a step further. The jurors should never have done a vote/count to start with. Had all 12 jurors come up with the same initial conclusion, it would’ve been an open and shut case. I think this is an issue with the lack of guidelines given to a jury in terms of how to go into that room, deliberate, and come up with a final verdict.

    2. The point you made about evidence was also something I found interesting. At first glance much of the evidence presented to the jurors sees cut and dry and points to the boy being guilty of murder. It is only once the jurors begin questioning the “facts” and begin thinking about what is possible versus what’s probable that they begin to uncover the truth. The last shred of reason for the “facts” seems to leave the group when one juror realizes that saying you want to kill a man does not actually mean you’re going to kill him. In this instance, the anger amongst the twelve men seems to have provoked a positive outcome that ultimately assists the men in making the most informed decision.

       1. That is why a good deliberation should be in need before making any decisions. The jury should make its decision on the basis of reasonable doubt. Eleven of the twelve men trusted the accuracy and reliability of the evidence and believed that defendant is guilty. They were also influenced by their own experience. Without the brainstorming and respectful discussions, they were unlikely to discover the reasonable doubt behind the evidence presented to them.

    3. I agree that the evidence was regarded as fact until it was discussed that the facts weren’t necessarily proven. I think the evidence became fact because the jurors chose it to fit into their opinions that way. If the old man heard the defendant threaten his father then that was fact that proved he was guilty because the jurors believed anyone who was capable of that kind of threat would go through with it. It wasn’t until fact became unproven assumption did jurors re-think how they came to their decision of a guilty verdict.

12. The process of deliberation depicted in this film was extremely difficult. The characters in this film verbalized many of their biases against class, race, and age. The irony was that it was these very negative comments that propelled some of the jurors to reconsider the evidence. The first once was Jack Klugman (Juror #5) who responded to reference of “slum kids” with a sense of shame and thoughtfulness. Juror #5 then changed his vote to not guilty because of the availability of the “unique knife” and the way the crime was said to have been carried out. When the immigrant Juror #11, responded to the notion of a hung jury and proclaimed the importance of civic duty, he was met with an angry rant from juror #3 who makes negative comments about immigrants. Juror #10 then proceeds to give a racist speech “these people don’t need a reason to kill someone” and was promptly told to shut up by the stockbroker (Juror #4). Finally, the elderly Juror #9 made the most compelling arguments for the defendant by punching holes in the testimony of the two witnesses. This fell in stark contrast to the comments made by juror number #3 who states that ” the witness, who was also an elderly gentlemen, didn’t know what he was talking about because of his age”. The comments made by Juror #3 had the opposite effect that the one intended and his statement was met with incredulous stares from the other jurors. Furthermore, Juror #3 was assaulted by his own son who walked out of his life. This probably explains why Juror #3 was the last to be swayed and was in tears as he voted innocent.

    I loved the fact these characters had to overcome their own biases to come to a decision that was fair. Based on the evidence and the statements there was significant reasonable doubt.

    I believe that all people have some form of bias that effects their decisions and may cause people to predetermine outcomes before considering the facts.

    1. I agree, each individual have some type of bias when decision is being made. It was great that at the end bias was overcome and decisons were made based on facts and sufficient evidence.

13. I believe that the film “12 Angry Men” represents an excellent case study of real-world deliberation in pursuit of a decision. Some things to note here about the dynamics at play during the course of the men’s discussions:

    1- One point if interest is in the breakdown in order in regards to the organization of the proceedings. At the beginning, the men are seated around the table in accordance to their number and are asked to speak in that order. This, of course, doesn’t last long, as the proceedings turn into a free- wheeling group argument, dominated by strong passions and strong personalities, and punctuated only by periodic votes.

    2- Another is the role of emotions and passions that strongly play a role in the deliberations. During the course of the film, we see that certain jurors in particular are driven more so by emotion based on outside factors and biases, seemingly not caring at all for fact and sound reasoning. On this point, it is also interesting to see how the juror played by Henry Fonda plays on the emotions of other jurors to prove his points, such as when he angered the juror with the known son to the point of getting him to scream “I’ll kill you!” The point here was for the Fonda juror to prove that one may not mean to kill someone when uttering that phrase.

    3- With that, something else to note is the role of evidence and reasoning in the proceedings. At the start, almost all of the men and except the Fonda juror readily accept the surface evidence presented in the case, wanting to get things over with and move on with their lives. The Fonda juror, knowing the possibly misleading nature of the evidence, along with what is at stake, implores his fellow jurors to dig deeper and reason through what was presented to them to prove the prosecutor’s case without a reasonable doubt. Of course, some of the jurors don’t appear to care about evidence and fact at all.

    4- Then, finally, there is the role of personal bias. During the course of the proceedings, we see how some of the men, coming from apparent disadvantaged backgrounds, show sympathy to the defendant in the case, a boy with a rough upbringing in the slums who was apparently abused by his father. Others who are more removed from that life are more harsh in their assessment of the boy. Then there’s the juror with the known son, whose apparent strained relationship with him informs his own harsh feelings towards the defendant.

    1. i like that you mention personal bias and the sequence of the plot and surroundings. It gives hits to audience about the movie

14. Although there appeared to be no formal procedures or rules governing who spoke, the jurors were, at least initially and sporadically throughout the deliberative process, able to establish their own guidelines. This was accomplished primarily through the juror sitting at the head of the table whom acted as a self-appointed facilitator (the foreman). While the jurors initially followed the guidelines set up by the foreman (i.e. going around in a circle), the more that disagreement arose, the more the system began to break down. However, the jurors were often able to retain the core of their voting process, and whenever a person suggested a group vote each juror complied.

    The relaxed nature of the rules for speaking was both productive at times and counterproductive at times. The system of going around in a circle provided a foundation that the jurors could resort to when the discussion got out of hand, however, it was not so restrictive that the jurors felt compelled to strictly follow that procedure. This enabled a juror who had a comment directed at a previous comment to jump out of order and engage in a discussion, or what was often the case, a yelling match.

    The structure, or lack thereof, also allowed for some jurors to sit quietly until they felt it appropriate to speak or they felt compelled to share their thoughts, opinions, or personal stories. We saw this with the juror who sat quietly until he shared his tale of growing up in the slum. It is instances such as this where the system, which seems so flawed at first glance, actually proves its worth. Due in part to the lack of strict rules the men were able to engage in a free-flowing process. This process allowed the men to present their observations, articulate their doubts, and try to convince the others why they were correct or somebody else was incorrect. Without such freedom some of the men may never have raised their voices and the outcome of the deliberation may have been completely different.

    Although on the outside the jury deliberation process may appear to be a fact based process, emotion perhaps played the greatest role in determining the outcome of this case. At the start of the deliberation some jurors were unable to articulate their reason for voting “guilty.” For example, one man stated something similar to the phrase, “I just know.” On the other hand, others defended their decision because it was based ‘strictly on the facts of the case.’ However, as Henry Fonda began disputing many of the facts and pressing them harder for their reasoning, we saw that there were ulterior causes for each juror’s vote of “guilty” –causes they themselves may not have been consciously aware of until they perhaps yelled a comment in the heat of passion. These causes, which are just as common today, included a combination of personal experiences with biases against a race, an economic status, a national origin, or an ethnicity.

    Furthermore, had Henry Fonda not challenged the facts as they were presented, then the outbursts of frustration and exasperation may not have occurred. And without those emotional outbursts, the jurors may not have realized that many of them jumped to an unsupported or unfounded conclusion. Thus, without the interplay of examining facts and allowing room for emotion, the defendant likely would have ended up in the electric chair.

    1. I like your point about how not having such strict rules actually was beneficial to the discussion. In this situation, it seems like rules would be necessary in order to keep order and structure to the discussion. However, in this case, breaking the rules and having disorder actually proved to be beneficial.
       In addition, having a rule that everyone needed to speak allowed for some jurors who may have remained silent to share their stories, which added to the discussion and the deliberation. It seems that strict rules would have limited the discussion and would have hindered the decision making process.

    2. I agree in part with your point regarding the open, free-flowing nature of the speaking process used in the film. In particular, the loose speaking structure here allowed for a more thorough debate and led to a more reasoned outcome than one that would have been reached in a more structured, rigid deliberation. However, I felt that the speaking process also easily led to things getting out of hand and devolving, not to mention that it allowed for stronger personalities to dominate most of the proceedings.

15. While the group intended to have rules governing who spoke, these rules ended up being absent most of the time. Each man was supposed to have his turn to speak, and the time was to be basically evenly divided between all of them. These rules, however, wound up being extremely counterproductive. As soon as someone heard something he didn’t agree with, or thought was incorrect, he had to jump right in and speak out of turn in order to correct it. This illustrates how emotion played a key role in making the rules ineffective. Many of the men felt so strongly about the issue that they could not wait their turn in order to say their point of view, or to disagree with someone else’s. While the men realized that they should have some rules in place in order to make the most of their time, the rules that they instilled were not effective in doing so.

    I think that emotion in the discussion had both a positive and a negative role. On the negative side, it clearly made it more difficult for the men to come to a decision quickly. If emotions were set aside, no one would have questioned the facts or the evidence in the case nearly as much. Therefore, there would have been much less deliberation. They would have just simply examined everything and reached a verdict. In addition, emotion made it much harder for all the men to get their points across. When one man was trying to speak, another would disagree and jump in and take over his speaking time.

    On the positive side, emotion is what caused the men to begin to question everything they were given. Some of the men had a hard time with the idea of putting someone in jail without fully examining all the evidence. Emotion is what led to disagreement, and this disagreement led to further deliberation. Furthermore, emotion was the driving force of the deliberation; it is definitely much easier to come to a decision when no emotions are involved. Without emotion playing a role, the wrong decision could have been made.

    I definitely think that the demographic composition of the jury affected the way the case was discussed and how the outcome was reached. The jury was made up entirely of middle aged white men. While they have all had different life experiences, those experiences are not as diverse as they would be in a more varied jury. People in a different age group, race, religion, sex, etc. would bring to the table a different way of doing things. In the movie, all the men pretty easily agreed on voting and speaking procedures, but with a more diverse jury, this would not have been the case. With increased diversity comes an increase in different ideas, and chances are there would be increased emotions and disagreement.

    1. One point I thought was interesting about the speaking procedures was how little they were enforced. The foreman was very passive when it came to keeping order and at one point offered the role to another juror. Due to his lack of order, quitter jurors were dismissed when asked of their opinion and the more opinionated or intimidating jurors spoke their minds freely. This makes me wonder, if another one of the jurors had been appointed to be the foreman, how the deliberation could have proceeded differently. It may have been best that the jurors were uncontrolled for the most part; this led to many being pushed to speak their mind. If the foreman position had fallen into the hands of a more hostile juror those quitter men may never had stated their opinions.

       1. Christopher, I wholeheartedly agree with you. This actually happened during a jury I sat in. Part of the reason I think this happens is because no one really knows what they are doing. Juries aren’t taught Robert’s Rules of Order or any other way to keep order. They are thrown in with the judge’s final instructions and left to figure it out. The foreman is never pulled aside and told any kind of guidelines by the court to ensure a fair deliberation process. In fact, I think most people these days only have an idea of what the jury process looks like based on how it occurs on serial crime shows! The foreman usually has some suggestions, but the process is guided mainly by how the strongest personalities express themselves and “govern” the conversation.

       2. Such a great point Christopher. It never occurred to me how differently things might have gone in the movie had the foreman been more steadfast and confident. His passive character did allowed for a heated debate of personal truths to develop. I agree that if, for example, the juror who was the last to switch his vote to non-guilty had been the foreman it would have been made clear to the entire jury from the start that bringing up any doubts regarding the “facts” that were presented to them in the courtroom would not be tolerated. His affinity for screaming and his overly aggressive behavior toward whomever was disagreeing with him at that moment would have most definitely caused a “groupthink” situation, much like an adult version of peer pressure, where the majority of jurors would have agreed with anything he said just to avoid his wrath, thereby negating the validity of whatever verdict they would have concluded with. That would have made for a much shorter movie and much less enticing storyline!

    2. Considering the time period, I believe the jury was quite diverse with the one caveat being gender. There should have been women on the jury, but I imagine the prosecutor who was clearly the better attorney, pushed for an all-male jury on the assumption it would be easier to win a conviction. That aside, I’d say the jury was decently diverse age-wise, and also had a diversity of ethnic whites, at a time when that meant a lot. In early to mid 20th century New York there was a large divide between ethnic white groups, that would not be recognizable today.

       1. I strongly agree with your point here. The jury in the film was probably as diverse as it could get in that time period in America. Given the time period, I’m not sure that gender exclusion would be considered much of a caveat, either.

    3. i strongly agree with your point demographic composition impacts the jury and it created disagreement and increased emotions

16. The film twelve angry men touches on the fine points of communication and shows how speaking procedures, decision making, reasoning, group composition and emotion can all have an effect in an organization setting.

    We are first introduced to the characters of the film, which curiously are all men. Although a random and fair jury might have consisted of more women, the demographic differences amongst the men made for long deliberation and surprising results. While the demographic of the jurors may have impacted the initial vote by the jury, I do not feel that it swayed the vote or discussion one way or another. However, I do feel the demographic drastically impacted the way the men spoke to one another and climate throughout the conversations. The attitude of men during this time period clearly impacted how the men interacted and the makeup of the jury did not allow for anything different. Had there been a woman in the jury, I feel the conversation may have proceeded differently.

    Tied to the point of climate is the role that emotion played throughout the men’s discussion. From the title, it is clear that emotion plays a huge part in the film but I am not sure if anger should be the one highlighted. One tactic the men used when deliberating and reasoning was intimidation, using their anger to provoke or convince others. Although this isn’t the best way of communicating, I feel as though it had a positive outcome for the jurors. The intimidation tactics and angry environment shook some of the jurors to think differently and others to speak up about how they truly felt. The tone throughout the deliberation though negative, assisted the jurors in listening to reason and analyzing the evidence.

    Throughout the intimidating and angry proceedings, reason and evidence are heavily relied on to convince one another. As the men began going over every detail of the trial from the evidence presented to the appearance of a female witness in court, the notion of possibility v. probability was strictly enforced. Looking at each piece of evidence presented and even those that were not presented, the men began to shed light on what could have possibly happen that night rather than the probability of events based on their own biases. As one juror found, the facts presented are only as good as the reason behind understating them; stating that you want to kill a man does not always mean you will act on your word.

    The film Twelve Angry Men relates directly to communication in an organization and displays how procedures, decision making, reasoning, demographics and emotion all play a role in how individuals can effectively or ineffectively communicate. Although the men may not have always utilized the bests practices for communicating, the deliberation highlighted points that work well in a group setting.

17. The only semi-formal procedures that governed who spoke which were put in place during the deliberations were instituted by the foreman, who suggested that the jurors go in order and give their opinions. This system broke down, however, as the arguments became more heated and passionate. Once this happened, the deliberations descended into chaos, with some jurors cowing others into submission, and others driving the tone of the debate through eloquence and natural leadership abilities. So while this system was not a formal procedure, it was a form of controlled chaos, where those with higher social standings within the group decided who was allowed to speak. While this system at first appeared to be counterproductive, as it allowed the charismatic bullies of the group to control the conversation, ultimately it gave the those who used their leadership and eloquence in a productive way to dominate the proceedings. Had the conversation been more orderly, with everyone given an equal chance, the juror who spearheaded the “not-guilty” vote would likely not have been able to make as forceful a case.

    Reasoning and evidence played a central role in the decision making of the group, however, they were certainly not the exclusive vehicles that the jurors utilized in order to come to the “not guilty” vote. At first, evidence both for and against a “not guilty” vote was not really discussed: the group as a whole had a “feeling” that the defendant was guilty, and that was enough for all but one of them to convict him. However, as more decent in within the group developed, both sides began to use reasoning to and evidence to make their case. By the end of deliberations, arguments about what evidence was relevant became the focus of the group. Both sides claimed the “facts” were essential, though the “guilty” faction seemed to feel like they had a monopoly on convincing evidence and that they only cared about the “facts’ of the case. In truth, however the “guilty” faction clung to their convictions even when it became clear that the evidence no longer supported their claim. In some ways, they would constantly mention the “facts” in an attempt to obfuscate the truth when the case turned against them. They used their gut instinct rather than objective reasoning to make their points.

    Emotion played a significant role on both sides of the deliberations. Many in the “guilty” faction had personal circumstances and prejudices which obscured clear judgment. Weather it was a negative emotions regarding father-son relationships, or prejudice toward those living in low income areas, the “guilty” jurors let their those negative emotions take charge of their decision-making. But even the “not guilty” jurors succumbed to their emotions. The juror who was the leader of the “not guilty” faction began his argument not because he had so much evidence in his favor, but because he seemed to take pity on a boy who had such a rough childhood. Likewise, the juror who came from a similar neighborhood as the defendant, ended up changing his vote not necessarily because he was convinced by evidence, but because he was hurt by the way people of his background were being described.

    1. B.Rabinovitch, I like how you call it controlled chaos. It’s poetic and accurate. I also agree with your assessment that the charismatic were able to control the conversation. Any thoughts on what the deliberation would have looked like had Juror 2 (the meek one) were the only one to have had an initial vote of Not Guilty? Had he been the first, and only, juror to express dissent from the group, how long would the deliberation have lasted? Would there have been a single chance of asking his opinion or even changing their vote?
       I also think that your assessment on the jurors using a “feeling” to determine the vote is spot on. The film used a very creative way of presenting the evidence in a way that the viewer would assume guilt, and then present a little more information so that the viewer could understand the counter argument. This I think is more “movie magic” then anything else as I think during the actual deliberation process the line between our feelings and rationality is somewhat blurred, even when we’re looking at “facts.”

       1. I think that had Juror #2 been the one to descent from the rest of the group and voted “not guilty” , the deliberations would not have lasted very long at all. He simply did not have the presence, eloquence and respect to command attention from the other jurors. Logic and evidence in many ways played second fiddle to personality and leadership in this setting, so even had he presented well thought out and convincing evidence, I don think he would have been taken seriously. It was only because the leader of the “not guilty” faction was so charismatic that he was able to turn the tables and convince the others.

18. In the film 12 Angry Men, there were very informal procedures that dictated who spoke. Every jury has whats called a jury Foreman whom is supposed to be the leader. In the movie the foreman first stated that they would go around in a circle to hear why or why not the accused was guilty and to elaborate on their selection of guilty and not guilty. These procedures worked well at first but then when people disagreed people quickly called out of turn to attack those with opposing viewpoints.

    When the initial vote was made people just raised their hands to show a guilty or not guilty verdict. But after much screaming back and forth they decided that it would be best to have an anonymous vote so that people could make a decision without being yelled at for their viewpoints. When this decision is made the movie has a turning point where one other juror votes not guilty and starts to tip the scales in the direction of a not guilty verdict. Eventually, one by one, the jury votes not guilty. The anonymous vote allows the jury to vote how they think and not based on how others think about them.

    I believe that the demographic certainly affected the way it was discussed but not so much the outcome. To be perfectly honest I feel that if a minority was on trial in the 1950s and the jury was composed of 12 while adult males that 10/10 times they would be found guilty and that this movie is just that, a movie. We live in a much different time now where the playing field has significantly leveled off in the judicial system, though I would also add that it is still a disadvantage to be a minority facing the judicial system in today’s time. But the 1950s was a time where racism was rampant and that anyone who did not have a light skin color would be deem guilty at first glace, a sad but true truth.

    1. It’s important to remember a couple of things here with respect to race. Firstly, the “minority” who was on trial in the film was almost certainly of Mediterranean background, either Italian, Greek, or Sephardic. These groups would be lumped in with “white” today but were not in the 1950’s. Further, the jury had at least 2 ambiguously Italian characters, one an immigrant and the other a child of immigrants. This means that the jury was not 12 white males, but rather included at least two minorities who began as guilty votes, but switched when presented with Fonda’s arguments. Ultimately race had little to do with the outcome, with the exception of the one all-but-professed racist in the group.

    2. Your comment regarding the importance of the anonymous voting really stood out to me, specifically because you called it a major turning point in the movie. Although I did take note of a shift in tone in the movie once the voting procedure was changed to this method, reading your comment made it much more apparent just how big of a role this one small change made in the entire outcome of the movie, and how big of a role anonymity still plays in our current society. It seems that through the decades, human nature has not evolved much in terms of people’s fear of being judged, giving too much weight to the opinions of others and therefore altering their opinions according to their current audience just for the sake of being accepted for fear of being judged.

19. 12 Angry Men reflected a story in which a jury made up of 12 men deliberated the guilt or acquittal of a defendant in a private room of a New York City court. The jurors were free to express their opinions and one of them took the role as an organizer in order to facilitate the deliberation. The organizer was productive during the speaking process, because without him, all the other jurors except Juror 8 were reluctant to spend time on the discussion.

    In the United States, a verdict in most criminal trials by jury must be unanimous. This rule for decision making forced the deliberation to last for hours, since the opinions of all jurors did not reach unanimity until a long deliberation and several rounds of voting. During the deliberation, the Juror 8 successfully convinced the other 11 jurors to change their mind. And eventually, the jury decided that the boy was not guilty unanimously. The outcome would be opposite if a majority rule was adopted, since in the preliminary tally, 11 of 12 men voted for “guilty.”

    The jurors should deliberate on the basis of reasonable doubt. At the beginning of the deliberation, all jurors except the Juror 8 who claimed to be basing their decisions on the “facts” were not committed to the rational process. The Juror 8 raised his reasonable doubt questioned the accuracy and reliability of the evidence during the deliberation. Since the evidence was not solid any longer, the other jurors rationally switched to support the view point of the Juror 8, deciding that the boy is “not guilty.”

    Emotion could play a significant role in the decision making both positively and negatively. The Juror 11, an immigrant, expressed his reverence for the U.S. justice system during the deliberation. On the other side, the Juror 3 had strained relationship with his own son, which emotionally making him want the defendant to be guilty. Because of his anger, the Juror 3 did not make his decision rationally until the end.

20. I noted three issues with the established procedures to govern the speaking roles that made it counterproductive. First, the procedures were not clearly or thoroughly defined. Having participated in a jury a few years ago, I remember that the most difficult thing was keeping some kind of established order for when people can and should talk. Or when someone can and should interrupt in order to question something that was said. This lack of definition of procedure can make certain hot topic issues points where the deliberation procedures brake down. In the film, we see this most when Jurors 3 and 10 hear something that they cannot help but comment on. There were also moments in the film where they decided to switch how things were done without rhyme or reason. For example, the jurors would sometimes vote with their hands and sometimes by secret ballot without explaining why a new method was being introduced.

    Second, the procedures established were never agreed upon by all. This may seem like a minute issue to bring up, but in my experience having all participants in a deliberation process agree to the same rules and procedures helps keep everyone accountable. The attitude taken by most of the jurymen was to casually accept the procedure established. Had everyone stated their consensus openly and loudly, it would have been much easier to keep certain jurors from disrupting the process.

    Third, a lack of respect, not just for the procedures, but for other people’s point of view made it difficult for the jurors to learn from each other. One of the first comments made by Juror 10 once the deliberation started was, “oh boy, there’s always one.” This comment immediately undermines the position of the minority view but also shows that the individual is not interested in learning from someone else. It also makes it difficult for those who have a more reserved way of participating (the meek Juror 2) to voice his opinion after facing some form of hostility.

    I was also surprised at how the film subtly highlighted the realities of not having true and diverse representation. That concept that gets floated around, “a jury of your peers”, is obviously not the case when you have 12 white working-class men deciding the fate of a young boy (I don’t recall his ethnic/racial origins were explicitly stated but it was mentioned that he was from the slums which implies racial/ethnic minority of lower class). Had there been a more diverse group, would the initial vote have been the same? My guess is that it probably still would have been a majority vote on Guilty. This is partially a result of how evidence is presented and how our minds make an initial interpretation on that evidence that is then hard to overcome. I found that challenging during my own jury process; to relook at the evidence presented from someone else’s point of view. The thought was always, “how is it that you don’t see what I’m seeing?” Even when we thing we’re being the most rational, we have our own mindset that can keep us from redefining how we look at the world.

21. The jury of “12 Angry Men” operated from the outset with few rules or procedures. The elected foreman began the jury’s deliberation (and the film) by opening the floor to suggestions on format and procedure. Beyond the basic guidelines given to the jury by the judge, the jury was open to deliberate the matter in any manner they liked. This is somewhat ironic considering the painstaking amount of order and structure that goes into a trial, and the endless rules and procedures which must be followed by attorneys. Ultimately the jurors decide to speak in order so each member can air their views, however this process proves counter productive as the driving interest of most jurors is simply to end the process as soon as possible.

    Voting was done both by show of hands and secret ballot at different points in the deliberative process. The foreman allowed periodic snap polls of the jury to be called by any juror (without objection) at anytime. This method reinforced the bandwagon effect as jurors either seeking to expedite the process simply joined the team with momentum. Beyond a basic desire to go home, many jurors simply didn’t have deep convictions one or the way other, and appeared easily swayed by the stronger convictions of their colleagues. This process ultimately benefited the Henry Fonda character as he established momentum, and built a mounting consensus for his points of view.

    Both the loose order for speaking and the snap polling contributed to the expression of highly emotional characters in the room. Two jurors on “team guilty” were particularly vitriolic, one as a consequence of racism and the other as a consequence of projected anger at his estranged son. The loose order of the jury’s deliberations allowed the more emotive characters to speak more frequently and dominate the room with their histrionics. Fonda’s character was able to combat this with both reasoned and judgment and emotions of his own, as the emotional characters responded far better to emotion than reason. All of this emotionality also served negatively to alienate some of the quieter jurors. Effectively, the two high emotional jurors in favor of conviction tried to bully the crowd into a verdict, while Henry Fonda’s character used both reason and emotion to maneuver around them and build a mounting consensus for acquittal. The two for conviction also had an uneasy alliance with the stock broker, who was for conviction on factual reasons only. His irritation with the two vitriolic jurors was frequently visible, and once he accepted Fonda’s arguments for acquittal based on the facts, he switched his vote, unencumbered by any emotional baggage.

    1. Thank you Peter for your in-depth analysis of emotion in this case. But I want to point out that, in my opinion, expressing opinions in an ordered manner was productive, because it forced each juror to communicate his own thoughts publicly. Otherwise many of the jurors would tend to express their opinions collectively without too much individual reasoning. A good deliberation should allow each participant to bring in their own experiences that may provoke deeper thoughts of others.

       1. That is true Shawn. Especially in a situation where 12 individuals are charged with a responsibility to deliberate, it is far better that all 12 should have something to contribute. This was nicely highlighted in the film by the Italian immigrant who confronts the juror with the baseball tickets.

22. One of the most interesting things about 12 Angry Men was how the entire narrative of the film was dictated by deliberation and communication instead of scenes and action. Decisions were made and opinions were influenced by deliberation. There weren’t outside influences such as a lawyer interrogating a witness that could affect a juror’s reaction in the moment. The film is a strong example of how verbal commucation can influence another person’s opinions and convictions.

    I found one of the most poingnent themes to how the jury reasoned with their decisions was the fact that “right vs. wrong” in this case for each juror was different. Early on, right was guilty and wrong was not guilty for 11 of the jurors. This mindset dictated reasoning throughout the film and eventually shifted to right is not guilty and wrong was guilty. Jurors struggled in their decisions of what was right or wrong in this case and this affected their reasoning behind each piece of evidence. Initially instead of focusing on the facts from an objective standpoint, facts were looked at from this right vs. wrong perspective. The defendant was wrong for threatening his father, the old man downstairs was right in what he heard and saw. It isn’t until the evidence is broken and the facts are looked at objectively do right and wrong become less defined.

    While the jury was made up of entirely men, the age of the jurors was the greatest difference amongst the twelve. The ages of jurors created for a diverse dynamic when they were all men. The middle aged men spoke condescendingly to the younger men who questioned the popular opinon on verdict. They also used their speech to dismiss older men. In other situations, younger men spoke timidity when there was pushback from the older men. In a room full of men, it was clear that age played an important role in how each juror respected another’s opinions.

23. Although “12 angry men” presents the process of a legal affair, it also depicts a basic picture of how people can judge and make decisions. The question remains whether emotion and logic can go along or there should be any mechanism to control either or both of them. We can easily argue about the fact whether emotion is necessary or promote the fact that logic should be the only dominant thing while making decision. But I believe, both emotion and logic are necessary and the most important fact is to establish balance between them. For example, the procedure used to govern who is going to speak first? The initial decision was everybody will seat according to their number and talk when their turn comes. It seems logical at first but one very important factor was missing. In any plan, the most obvious thing that can happen is the plan may fail. Although it was expected that the juror will act and speak with responsibility for the governing process to work, but after a while when emotion took place, they went out of control and the process failed. At this point, we need to think, is it emotion that needs to be blamed? Or we should blame the process which was established without considering the emotional outburst may occur and no rule to control and bind them. Voting process was based on the fact that the jurors will be presented with evidence, then they will discuss and vote whether the accused boy is guilty or not. Again, this was a matter of someone’s life and this process was poorly organized and as the film shows, that boy might have died for the crime he did not commit. Again we can see that, emotional outburst was not anticipated before, which literally forced the jurors to take the wrong decision. Again the question pops up, is it the human emotion to blame? Or, is it the poor judgment process? End of the film, we can see that the logical intellect of the few jurors save the boy. Logic triumphs over emotion. Does this give logic an upper hand over emotion? In my opinion, the process was so poorly designed that emotion seemed to be the weaker feature here. But again, it is always important to establish balance between emotion and logic, and I always find this point to stand tall down the line. Although logic saved the boy’s life, but I see emotion as the motivational factor for logic to focus more on the minute details regarding the analysis of the evidence and witness statement. So my concluding line is, the film makes me realize that apart from logic and emotion, for any judgment process, we need a proper system.

24. Chaos reigned supreme throughout the majority of the film 12 Angry Men. It becomes apparent rather quickly that although there is a Foreman who is meant to lead the Jury in administrative tasks such as evidence requests and voting procedures, he has just as little control over the room as any of the other jurors. He proposes a method of counting the votes, and of course it is immediately questioned by a juror that disagrees, and rather than remain calm and address the jurors concern, the Foreman takes offense and allows his emotions to dictate his reaction. It is at this moment that it becomes obvious that although the original intention was to go around the table and allow each man to have his fair turn at speaking his mind, these rules were going to be disregarded by the jurors especially since the person who was meant to be enforcing them couldn’t follow them himself. This point is further supported by how many times the voting procedures changed throughout the movie. The outcome was different each time a vote was cast as more and more ideas and alternative possibilities were brought to light, but in addition to that, I believe the voting methods had a heavy influence on the outcome of each vote as well. The anonymous method of writing their vote on a piece paper released a lot of the pressure on those who wanted to switch their vote one way or the other. When they voted by show of hands, those who were on the fence were more likely to vote with the majority of the group probably in an effort to avoid confrontation. The psychological phenomenon of “groupthink” came to mind when watching this movie. There were instances where a juror would agree with another one’s opinion, or avoid delving deeper into the questionable bits of evidence and witness testimony, just for the sake of ending the conflict. Even after the least morally concerned jurors were silenced and the facts of the case were discussed in more detail, everyone’s perspective of the “facts” was colored in some way or another by a personal bias that was completely unrelated to the actual case. The overarching theme of chaos is fueled almost exclusively by the jurors’ emotions and their inability to put them aside when discussing the case with one another. The emotions had an overwhelmingly negative impact on the situation, although there were some positive moments related to emotional outbursts, such as when the elderly man was disrespected by one of the jurors and another one of them immediately jumped to his defense and put the rude one in his place. The final juror to switch his vote to non-guilty remained stubborn about sending the accused to the electric chair for so long purely due to the pain caused by the thinking about his estranged son. This resulted in him overlooking the facts and any proof that supported a nonguilty verdict. At the end of the film, he did acknowledge that there was a reasonable doubt of guilt, but I believe he was only able to get to this point because he finally acknowledged the true root of his emotional distress and that he was misplacing his anger, showing that emotions played both a positive and negative role in the movie.

25. Jerin Choudhury

    12 Angry Men” emphasized on a jury’s deliberations in a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old man suspected in the shooting death of his father, where a guilty judgement means programmed death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak reason; a knife appealed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and numerous observer either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis’ bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond an accountable disbelief that the offender is guilty. As the deliberations reveal, the story quickly converts s a study of the jurors’ complex personalities (which range from wise, bright and imagined to arrogant, biased and cruel), preconceptions, backgrounds and interactions. That provides the framework to Mr. Davis’ attempts in convincing the other jurors that a “not guilty” judgement might be correct.

Comments are closed.