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?
64 thoughts on “12 Angry Men”
Comments are closed.
As soon as the jurors walked into the room, they were relaxed and started settling into the space. It was clear that most of them expected the unanimous decision to be 12-0 in favor of guilty as charged. However, as the discussion began and things took unexpected turns, they became angry, unsettled and impatient. When they began discussing the case, Juror #1 took the leadership role and left the floor open to whoever wanted to speak. Once someone made a suggestion, Juror #1 asked if anyone objected to the suggestion and if not, they acted on it. This same procedure also applied towards the way the voting and decision-making took place; which was helpful because it gave everyone a chance to speak. It also allowed room for arguments and persuasions. Juror #8 questioned a lot of the evidence presented in court; he used reasoning to question the motives of the witnesses that were put on stand. Most of the jurors who claimed to be making their votes on facts, were not open to listening to Juror #8’s approach to reason and reviewing the so-called facts of the case. Throughout the discussion, emotions arose mostly in anger and frustrations. This played a positive role in the decision-making, because it opened the door to more questions and self-reflections for the jurors to really think about voting on the life of a young man without their own personal feelings getting in the way.
I was thinking a lot about the anger and frustration that you mention. I found that those who were most opposed to engaging the facts, questioning the facts, were the ones who had some kind of personal prejudice. To me, this behaviour is similar to the public debate on matters of national importance where there is an ideological desire to support a particular position (e.g. Second Amendment rhetoric, border security, free trade) facts and numbers be damned.
Jonathan,
I completely agree with you people in political power or have public influence tend to hone in on human emotion despite numbers or facts, very similar to the presidential campaign going on today. Too many people in control use feelings rather than facts to gain influence and make decisions. When people, more importantly the jurors in this case were able to separate their personal feelings from the facts or lack thereof, all 12 men were able to come to a sound conclusion.
I found that the jurors relied heavily on their immediate emotions and may have had their decisions framed primary by the prosecutor. It was mentioned in the movie that the boys attorney bearly made any case to defend him and they took the lack of defensive arguments as an indicator that he also knew that the boy must have killed his father.
I found the role that evidence and reasoning played in this trial extremely interesting. At the beginning of the movie, all the jurors except juror #8 took the evidence presented at face value and did not think to examine it further. To them, it was clear the boy was guilty because of the “facts” that were presented to them by the prosecution. As the movie progressed, each piece of evidence was disputed and each juror (even those set on the fact that the boy was guilty) slowly came to realize that there was a lot of reasonable doubt. The process of further examining the evidence was an emotional process for the jurors and I think this was both positive and negative. It was emotions that led some jurors to sympathize with the boy’s past and his circumstances. This allowed some to see the evidence differently and was one of the main reasons juror #8 voted not guilty in the first place. Additionally, there were a lot of negative emotions in the jury room. A few jurors in particular were very combative and hostile when people disagreed with their opinion on the case. This caused a lot of wasted time and some jurors were bullied into keeping their votes at guilty for a majority of the discussion. If a lot of the emotions were taken out of the discussion a unanimous decision would have been made more quickly. With a few exceptions, the jury was composed of mostly middle class white men. This played a huge part in the decision making process. Had there been more men of color and women on this jury the initial vote and process would have been wildly different. I believe diversity (race, gender, age, economic status, education, experience, etc.) plays a large part in effective decision-making. This allows jurors to see things from varying perspectives and helps to eliminate bias during discussions and decision-making (although it is unlikely that bias can ever be completely eliminated). I think that with a more diverse jury, the initial vote would have been closer to 6-6 instead of 11-1.
Keri, I completely agree with you on the demographics of the jury. If the jury was more diverse then the initial vote would be less one-sided. I think the producers of this movie wanted to highlight the lack of diversity by showing that the jury room had a men’s and women’s bathroom, but there were no female jurors. Did they plan to show how unequal the society was at that time? There were 12 middle class white men determining the future of the non-white defendant from a bad neighborhood. These observations lead us to believe that society at that time was full of prejudice. Since the boy was from a minority group, some of the jurors never took the case and the life of boy seriously. Only one juror, #8, puts himself in the place of the boy. He saw the entire trial as if it was he to be executed on electrical chair. Only 1/12 was brave enough to do this.
Anna, thank you for pointing out that the jury room had a men’s and women’s bathroom. I didn’t notice that detail and it is an important one. I think that you are correct in saying that they were trying to depict how society was at the time and the prejudice and bias in the room is very evident.
One could argue that society has changed a great deal since that movie. However, I find myself making comparisons to our society today while reflecting on this assignment. In cases recently highlighted in the media, specifically Travyon Martin’s case, the jury decision making process is significant. In Trevon Martin’s case the jury was made up of 6 women, 5 white women and 1 woman of color. Does that demographic sound familiar? I find it troubling that in 2013 (the year this case was tried) that our juries are so non-inclusive.
I’m glad you mentioned bravery. I completely agree with you, it took a lot of bravery for juror #8 to imagine himself in the same situation as the boy and to stand up to a room full of 11 other (rather intimidating) men.
Keri and Anna, you both bring up excellent points regarding the role of diversity and the blatant lack thereof throughout this film. I do think the producers did this intentionally. However, I think their motive could have been to illustrate to the audience that even in a room full of all white men, who seemingly have little by way of diversity, there is great room for prejudice. The defendant was also white – though in the eyes of many of the jurors, he was a minority nonetheless. Class plays an important role in the emotional aspect of the film, as some jurors sympathized with the defendant due to his unfortunate lot in life, while for others, it only furthered their resolve that he must be guilty. One scene that struck me was when the jurors were debating whether it was possible for the defendant to have actually stabbed his father considering their height difference. One of the jurors was an expert on the subject of knife-fighting because he himself had grown up in the slums and watched many fights in his neighborhood. This was a curious piece of information for us to learn since this juror adamantly stuck to his vote that the defendant was guilty until that very point, when he realized, based on his own life experiences, that it was impossible for the boy to have stabbed his father. However, it was curious that he was quick to assume the defendant must be guilty based on where he came from – considering they came from the very same place.
I think you made some great points in your response; I do agree that the fact that the jury was composed of only white males had a strong impact on the outcome of the first preliminary vote. If the jury was composed of male and female, people of different races and of different age groups, the first vote would have definitely had a more scattered outcome. I believe this played a major role in the way the arguments were presented. Also, if the jury was more diverse, juror #8 would have had more people on his side questioning the facts and evidence presented in court and as you mentioned, this would have reduced the time used in coming to a unanimous vote.
Kristia, while I think it’s possible that a jury of mixed race and gender could have altered the opinions of the jury members, I don’t agree that it is a guarantee as you seem to indicate in your post. I think focusing so much on race and gender takes away from realization that there was a juror who did not vote as the rest did and that his persuation and presentation of the facts altered the votes of all the jury members. I feel that is more prevalent here than the makeup of the jury.
At the outset of the movie Juror 8 voted “not guilty” not because he believed the accused to be innocent but because he didn’t know either way. Through the group’s examination of the evidence the “facts” became questionable. This convinced not only those who previously voted “guilty” to change their votes but also reassured juror 8 of his “not guilty” vote.
Maureen,
I agree, juror 8 originally makes his vote not guilty because he has a feeling that there is a possibility that a reasonable doubt may indeed exist. Although he may have thought the boy was guilty initially he didn’t take lightly making a decision that would ultimately affect the boys life either. He didn’t allow himself to get 100 percent persuaded by the prosecutors reasoning and was able to eventually pick apart the “facts” and develop another possibility.
I believe the role for speaking were productive in that it allowed room for everyone to express themselves regardless if what they were saying was influenced by emotions or reasons. One can notice that everyone was to be silent when one of the juror was voicing on the subject. They have used different procedures in voting, at first, they allowed everyone openly to decide whether or not he kid was guilty and second they’ve used the technique of anonymous written ballot as to allow people to vote sincerely without feeling that they were being judge for thinking differently.
What’s intriguing in this movie is the fact that the juror who at first pleaded the boy not guilty is the one who tries to understand everyone’s point of views. It’s as if he encouraged to speak because according to him, he doesn’t think it’s fair to send a kid to die without talking about it. He wants to make sure all the jurors on the table analyses the situation in order to make an accurate decision.
Another noticeable point is that some jurors who are claiming to base their decisions on facts are the ones whose judgments are actually effected by emotions, and prejudices. They are the ones to be neither open nor receptive to the eventuality that the boy might be innocent. Negative emotions shouldn’t have taken so much part in the decision making process involving someone’s deaths Emotions cloud their thought process of finding out if the testimonies that are going to put a boy into an elective chair should be accurate. It’s evident that each jurors come from different situations and it clearly played an important role in deciding if the boy was guilty and non- guilty based on their past unique experiences and upbringings.
Jennifer,
You bring up a very important point when you mention how jurors based their own past and unique experiences to their decision. As I watched the movie, I couldn’t help think about how many people have been incarcerated based on a non-diverse jury. It is very interesting to think of how everyone can experience the same event or witness the same thing and yet our brain, unconsciously many times, will manipulate the scene and see what it wants to see. I really hope that there are a lot of juror #8’s out there that have prevented innocent people from serving time.
Jennifer,
I liked that you mentioned that the 8th juror encouraged everyone else to speak so that he could hear their opinions. This makes me wonder if the 8th juror voted the boy not guilty because of the rational reason that he did not find the evidence satisfactory or because it was a a young boy on the stand. Perhaps he voted not guilty because he though he was doing the right thing to not convict a young child.
In order to derive to a decision quickly, Juror #1 takes the lead as the mediator. We learned that he is a baseball coach, so he stays fair, gives respect and enforces the procedures and rules in the room. Early on, it becomes evident that everyone’s life experience and bias determine their beliefs, their behavior in the room and how they will vote. It appears to be the over arching rule for decision-making.
From the beginning of the movie, it was clear that majority would vote that the boy is guilty. This thought is confirmed when an initial open vote is conducted and 11 of the 12 jurors vote guilty. Peer pressure came into play. The guilty voters are shocked to see that juror #8 finds the boy not guilty. At that moment they start to show emotion. Even though their emotions are negative, it helps the jurors to see how prejudice one could be. They decide to convince Juror #8 to vote guilty by explaining their thoughts. Juror #1 asks to go one by one to present each of their arguments. This exercise is counter productive because at least 3 jurors cannot explain their vote. Juror #8 went to the boy’s neighborhood and bought the same knife from the same store to prove it is accessible to anybody. With this argument he dismisses the main piece of evidence presented at the trial – the murder weapon. He talks about reasonable doubt and asks for the secret vote since he senses lack of confidence in some jurors’ arguments. The result is more jurors vote not guilty. The room divides into two groups. Juror #8 takes the lead for the innocence of the boy versus leader of guilty verdict group – Juror #3, who bases his vote unconsciously on his own difficult relationship with his son and the emotions it brings.
Every “guilty” juror fixates on one piece of evidence presented at the trial until each of the “not guilty” jurors prove them wrong by providing mathematical (diagram of the apartment), psychological (panic), and logical explanations that point out to the innocence of the boy. Eventually, after one intense hour of deliberation all “facts” from the trial collapse. Juror #3 has an emotional breakdown and changes his vote. The final verdict is not guilty.
Hey Anna,
Reading your response, I am glad you mentioned the secret vote, because I think this decision was the breakthrough for juror #8, as well as juror #1. Juror #1 took the leadership position, but at the same time left room for fairness and made a great decision to allow people to vote secretly so no one feels the pressure to vote on the side of the majority. Having the vote go from 11-1, to 11-2 created room for juror #8 to raise his concerns and begin showing the other jurors who voted guilty, a reason to have ‘reasonable doubt.’
Anna, that’s such an important point you bring up in mentioning that everyone’s life experience and bias determine their beliefs, behavior and how they will vote. It was even noted by one of the jurors when he said, “It’s always difficult to keep prejudice out of this. Prejudice always obscures the truth.”
Until now, I hadn’t made the connection with Juror 1 being a baseball coach and his role in maintaining a fair and orderly environment for all to participate.
This connection between life experience and behavior was further evinced with Juror 8’s profession as an architect. The very nature of an architect is to construct and build things; but before constructing anything, an architect draws out a plan and directions which lay out precisely how a building will be constructed. This is reflected in Juror 8’s demeanor, his methodology and his approach throughout the film. He could not bring himself to make a decision, to build his opinion, until he carefully laid out every piece of evidence and measured it for accuracy to ensure it was foundationally sound. By doing this, he saw – and enabled the jurors to see – that the verdict of “guilty” was actually built on a shaky and unreliable foundation.
Anna,
It’s interesting how you incorporated the profession of juror #1 while describing his role as the foreman. Juror # 8, the architect, is careful when making a decision. He wants to know all the details of the case. He also puts each evidence presented in the case to the test to ensure it is valid. The decision of an architect affects public safety. Similarly, the decision of the jury will determine the defendant’s fate, which explains why he takes the case very seriously. His experience as architect contributes to his thought process and plays a critical role in the decision-making process.
Reasoning and evidence were the particularly interesting issues for me when thinking about deliberation in 12 Angry Men. The evidence was spurious at best and though we don’t know directly it seems that the prosecution was relying on the bias of the jurors to the ends of a conviction. After sixty or seventy years this film still speaks to issue that we have in public deliberation in America: asserting positions based on flawed evidence and a general refusal to engage reason and facts on matters of public importance. The position people had at the beginning of the deliberations was to accept the information that they were given without questioning it much. There was the one holdout who forced the rest of the jury to question the evidence. However, his barrier was not the fact but the other juror’s emotions surrounding the matter. These jurors were basing their decision, not on the evidence, or how questionable the evidence may have been, but rather on their emotions and out-group bias toward the defendants’ social position. In the case of the last holdout, his desire to convict the defendant was based on his own personal experience with his son. In the face of irrationality, and a mob mentality, the fact that the jury came around is perhaps idealized. I am not convinced that in a deliberative environment, when bias and self-interest are at play, that facts and data will prevail. To that end I think the movie presents the best of what we can expect from a deliberative process, but not what we get from it when the process is influenced by irrelevant external minutia. The one thing that seemed to break the logjam in the beginning was the secret ballot. Psychologically speaking, when a group like this jury is openly voting, there will be a bias toward conformity, when that is taken away there is less desire toward conformity with the group, or it is at least mitigated, which allowed for others in the group to defect from the prevailing opinion of the group and continue deliberation.
Indeed the outcome of the deliberation in the jury room was idealized. The entire process of deliberation was a struggle/conflict of everyone’s personal life experiences and bias, only communication helped to derive to the just decision. In this movie, we see the outcome a civilized society would expect for an innocent person. It only can be achieved through reasoning and communication amongst the members of the group.
Jonathan, I find it very interesting that you mentioned that you find it hard to to believe that facts and data will prevail in a deliberative environment when self interests and bias are at play. I’m afraid that what you’re pointing out is right. You are making a very sensical and logical point. We are humans beings after all, how objective can one be? Nevertheless , If I decide to agree, wouldn’t that also mean that in general the justice system is flawed from the beginning as bias will always take place being that we are human beings? Because, I do believe the jury system is situated in a deliberative environment. If that’s the case, then why do we even have this system in place?
Jennifer,
A rabbit hole if ever there was one: Justice in America. I would contend that yes our Justice System is flawed and unfair. Having been on a jury a few times for both civil and criminal matters, and seen deliberation in the jury room in person all I can say is that regardless of the facts the people in the room bring their own preconceived notions and bias’s to the table. Is our system flawed, because we are human, for sure. Is it the best system that we have come up with so far, yes, and sadly I can not think of a better one. I am not sure that I would want only Judges (especially elected ones) deciding the fate of every person who came before the bench. But it is by no means perfect, and mostly due to the flaws of being human. I suppose if I invoke John Rawles a bit here and say that “from behind a veil of ignorance” (that is not knowing my position and station in life) given the options for a justice system based on the ones that are in available or have been in the past but are no more, I would likely choose the system we have. A long response to say I agree, but there are a lot of meaty ideas in the question of Justice.
Jonathan,
I completely agree with your points and to continue on the thought that the movie presents some of what we can expect from a deliberative process, it would be interesting to know what the process is in other institutions and whether irrationality and emotion, or conflict of interest, play such a large role.
The manner in which the jury conducted itself as a group was a very interesting dynamic throughout the film and certainly impacted how they eventually reached a consensus.
First is the way in which they consistently tracked overall opinion – voting, and specifically open versus secret ballots. The session began with an open vote, and while this was an easy way to gauge where jurors stood at the onset, it also quickly swayed those jurors who were more impressionable. It was obvious some jurors, seeing a number of hands quickly go up for guilty, raised their hands as well so they would be in line with what was initially a majority. Secret ballots, which were also used at times, were good cover later in the film to allow people to switch over, and perhaps, if used in the beginning, would have had more for ‘not guilty’ at the start.
Similarly, after the initial vote, the group chose to have each person state his or her opinion in more detail, which played a clear role in leading to the eventual outcome. With one initial dissenter, the jury could have easily forced him to make a case or intimidated him. Instead though, they went around the table, making each person state his thoughts. This forced each individual out of the comfort of a group, and made clear who had ‘facts’ in mind and who was just going on gut or group feeling. This fostered more overall discussion, allowing the initial lone dissenter to raise points countering others opinions versus trying to state an overall case on his own. Some of the loudest proponents of guilty were more emotional that rationale, but by forcing people to state their individual case, it created separation between the two groups, eventually allowing facts to lead to a new consensus.
Yes, voting procedures were interesting. The initial open ballot was straightforward. It let everyone know who stood where. However, the use of secret ballot was strategic on the part of juror #8. It made it easier for someone to come over to his side. It helped persuade.
Some over arching rules for the decision making were that 1.) everyone had to be part of the discussion, 2.) the decision would be made by every juror voting his own conscience, and 3.) no vote was worth more than any other. Individuals tried to coerce the others but ultimately each juror respected the structure.
Emotions are a strong catalyst to our decisions. They have the ability to spur and warp our sense of reality and greatly impact our lives. In the film, the jurors show sign of importing strong negative emotions to their impartial duty. Juror 8 feels empathy towards the defendant because he can relate to what the defendant is going through. Juror 10 is irritated and bitter at the other members of the jury. He finds fault with all the people around him and constantly berates them. Juror 3 is sadistic and chooses to view the defendant solely as guilty. He is upset when he thinks about situations where he is not entirely in control. He reflects back to when his son punched him in the face and becomes further upset. Lastly, Juror 7 is focused entirely on concluding the trial as quickly as possible as to make it in time for a baseball game. A logical decision is not his concern, only a hasty one.
Juror 8 is the only one to vote the defendant as not guilty. As the minority of the group, his character showed that the minorities are often underrepresented in the criminal justice system because of their socioeconomic status. Due to their low economic status, minorities are always portrayed as violent and commonly resorting to crime. This correlates to his occupation of being an architect. As an architect, one has to go over every meticulous detail of their plans. Juror number eight is the only one to base his decision by thoroughly studying the facts and evidence provided. He remained calm and committed to his rational decision by not letting his surroundings or personal life affect his decision. His patience allowed him to discuss the case, rather than just voting and returning back to his normal routine. “Let’s sit and talk”, and “This is not a game” were two important lines that showed his commitment to justice. People tend to become irrational when their own personal life gets in the way of making a clear decision. By sitting down and calmly discussing the facts, new insights can be found in order to steer decisions in the right direction.
They were in a collaborative group when it came to decision making. By having all the members reach a consensus decision, the jurors participated by fully stating their opinions based what facts they remembered during the trial. The rules for speaking were productive. Each juror was given time to speak and be heard. They go around the table and express their opinions without being pressured by the others. Juror 8 acted as the leader of this group by having everyone show respect to one another while listening to different viewpoints. Jurors must feel the safety to freely express their opinions even if it should clash with another. Emotions are a natural part of our lives but we must do our best to not let them interfere with our logic and reasoning.
Elaine,
It really is interesting how much our emotions can influence the decisions that we make. I was really shocked at the end of the movie by juror #10’s reaction. He tried so hard to seem very manly and in control of things throughout the whole discussion but at the end he was just overwhelmed with so much emotion and had to let go. I completely agree with you that we must learn to control our emotions and not let them interfere with our logic and reasoning, but I also think it is easier said than done.
Elaine & Shareny,
I too agree with you both emotions are very powerful having the ability to drastically change lives. Our thoughts determine our thinking, our thinking shapes our emotions, and our emotions influence our decisions. When thinking you feel but you can’t always act on the feelings you have or the world would be in a lot worse shape than it is currently in. Juror # 3 was ready to send this young man to the chair simply because he couldn’t see past his own personal problems and associated everything related to kids with his son. This type of behavior is not unheard and very common but it doesn’t make it right we have to learn to be unbiased in situations and very objective which is harder said than done.
Elaine,
This architect should have been a lawyer, don’t you think?
But in all seriousness, I also found the architect metaphor increasingly interesting.
Just as public servants and public policy writers, architects should not take the risk of building a fragile structure. They have responsibilities in the short and long terms and I believe those are key factors that led the thinking process of juror #8.
Elaine,
I am also interested in the 7th juror and his unwillingness to participate in political discussion. I believe he was distracted and directed his attention towards the fan in the room, which is not entirely bad. The environment, such as the temperature of the room, can affect our behavior. It can increase the likelihood of seeing acts of aggression. After the fan turned on, he seemed relax and at ease. Although he did not explain why he changed his vote, one can assume the change in room temperature played a pivotal role.
Elaine, I also agree with your point how emotion can play influential role to make a jury decision during a trial. Juror 3 used his past experience to come up with the decision. Although he looks very stubborn and arrogant, his emotion was playing the key role for his argument that “the boy is guilty”. At the end of the movie, juror 3 realized that he should use reasoning over emotions to judge this case. This movie shows that although in present days, jurors might not get paid properly for their actions, they should heavily use their emotions heavily over facts. They should understand how their one single inappropriate decision could bring damages in someone’s life.
I see the all white cast as allowing the filmakers to control for racial, gender, etc. stereotyping within the movie. It simplifies the demonstration of a range of singular personality characteristics. What voice would a black or latino juror have taken — would he be representing a stereotypical ethnic minority or would he be allowed a naturally unique personality? Would a female juror have been portrayed as the “emotional” or “pushy” or “meek” character? And what characteristics to give the accused?
Diversity is important because the world is diverse. It is also messy. Even in this 1957 movie of all white men a range of universal traits and emotions are represented — domineering/meek, exhuberant/reserved, rich/poor, confident/hesitant, lazy/conscientious, etc. Considering a layer of racial and gender diversity on this movie clouds the discussion. Ideally the jury would be diverse and we would see those same traits coming through just as clearly with each character. Because of bias in our society it is not that simple.
The all white male cast allows the audience to ignore cultural differences in order to focus on the universal human experience and the process of jury deliberation. Twelve people with different personalities made a decision together. It took some time and some people got mad but it worked.
Maureen, what an insightful post! You’re saying that considering gender and racial would have clouded the discussion and I find myself joining you in this observation. I don’t believe myself that it would have a made a huge difference which racial class were present nor would it have a made a difference if women were present in deciding whether or not the kid is guilty or not guilty. As you wrote, it would have perhaps lead to more debates and cloudiness without tackling the real problem at hand and focusing more on reasoning and evidence.
The group dynamic was very much like most new group dynamics without a clear leader. As it typically happens, an individual self-proclaimed himself a leader. Juror #1 takes the lead based on his juror number and decides that their juror numbers will determine the order in which to speak. The rule for speaking, I felt was fair. It allowed for everyone to voice their opinion but at the same time it didn’t prevent others from voicing their disagreement, allowing for a discussion. Overall it was a productive decision since it allowed for the exchanges to occur and ultimately derive to the conclusion that was made. Which I thought was a fair decision. The voting procedures were both voiced and explained. The rules were that the person was entitled to their opinion but needed to offer some type of explanation as to why the decision they were taking. By having each juror explain his vote, it allowed for an in deep analysis of the evidence. It also allowed for things to be questioned and reflected on that led to the decision. The demographic composition of the jury affected the way in which how easy 11 of the men came to the conclusion early on that the boy was guilty. The jurors would refer to the boy as savage or wild due to his race. They believed he was guilty on the mere fact that he wasn’t white since “those” people do things like that. Taking away the boy’s humanity based on the fact that he was not white, and therefore negatively different, allowed for any emotional ties to develop. This lack of emotion towards the boy made the men naïve to any feelings even though their decision would affect this boy’s life forever. It took the one juror who decided to question the situation for others to connect with emotions and begin to question their decision based on the evidence. Ultimately, the ending of the film shows great emotion when it becomes clear that the last juror to change his mind was so set on his decision based on his own relationship with his son. His emotional projection from his own relationship was making it impossible for him to soften up and see what the rest of the men saw. When he finally comes to terms with the realization that he is basing his decision on his own biases, he lets go in a very emotion way.
In the movie it seemed to appear that the Juror number one took control of the situation and arranged the juror’s by number having them speak and vote in number order which appeared to be affective causing very little chaos. Whether or not the respect was given to each juror at certain points in the deliberation room is another question entirely. The rules seemed most productive when voting but counterproductive when trying to present the case of innocent vs guilty. Everyone was given an opportunity to make their case as to why they voted the way they did. Some jurors where more vocal about their votes and voiced their opinions as such.
Those who claimed to be basing their decision on “facts” either chose not to look deeper into the case because of preoccupied plans (i.e. baseball games) or personal biases or lacked the mental capacity to see beyond what was presented. Although in the end it was logic and reasonable doubt that reigned supreme.
The demographic composition of the jury affected the case discussion but not to the extreme others would have you believe. Because there was a juror who grew up in the slums and could related to the defendant he brought that perspective in to play if there would have been a “minority” on the jury that same fact and point would be introduced. Having women on this jury the discussion would be emotional as well but from a different view. Mothers are naturally nurturing and express more feelings so the discussion would automatically be different. The current jury had immigrants, had men of different occupational and cultural backgrounds and of different age so it played on some demographics just not the common ones of nationality and gender.
Emotions and peer pressure were definitely important themes in this movie and are very much relevant in today’s society. Emotions clouded judgement and in this case and was the sole reason for the deliberation. I find it interesting Juror # 5 who closely related to the defendant having grown up in the “slums” didn’t realize his very own similar childhood up bringing until pointed out by Juror #8. I find that to be true in today’s society, you have people who try so desperately to forget where they come from and those who never leave the neighborhoods of their upbringing thus never having the opportunity to forget.
All it took was one man to have the courage and conviction to stand strong in his opinion that led to the saving a young man’s life.
I agree with Keri in which diversity plays a big role decision making because it mirrors the reality of the population of the country. A diverse society recognizes respect in negotiation; it does not make request as a single voice, but as multiple unique voices speaking collectively. We grow as a person or as a nation with the exchange of ideas and beliefs. It’s important for people to get along with others who are different because our society is increasingly multicultural. Prejudice grows from lack of knowledge. The more we know about each other, the better we will get along.
In the movie “Twelve Angry Men” represents the power of deliberation during the jury trial of a case. In the movie, jurors have to figure out whether the boy was guilty or not for the crime of killing his murder. Although eleven jurors claimed that the boy was guilty, only juror 8 questions about the decision of other jurors. He applies deliberation skills where he plays on the facts about the murder and was able to change the decision of other at the end of the movie.
In the movie, jurors use the process of both open voting and secret ballot voting. Secret voting is more effective because no-body had to explain why they vote on that way. On the other hand, for the open vote, when somebody votes against the majority, they would face the anger issue. Therefore, jurors use their emotions and personal biases over facts to judge this trial. For example, juror 3 claims that the boy was guilty because his own son was also disrespectful towards him at his early age. So, this boy must kill his own father. On the other hand, juror 9 has prejudice toward the people who live on slum. So, the boy must be guilty because he lives on the slum. However, juror 8 questioned facts about the murder. He sometimes also uses emotions to describe the situation of the boy, which gets very impactful among other juror to change their decision. Therefore,
Juror 8’s action shows that how deliberation can be impactful to prove your argument in front of the audience.
I agree with Kristia’s point about the jury expecting a unanimous decision from the word go. Majority of the jury lacked focus and were just there to pass a guilty verdict and move on, even those who turned out to harboring doubts about guilt of the boy. They didn’t pause for a moment to think about their decisions and consciences of those decisions.
With the exception of juror no.8 the rest I believe assumed the persecutions account of events to be accurate and was enough for them to base they decision solely on that. They were not ready to take a second look and analyze the evidence presented in court into details but had to do so due to the actions of juror number 8.
Also it was interesting to see how their personal experience in life played a role in both their initial guilty votes of some jurors and the eventual not guilty vote. The decisions of people can be greatly influenced by their ability to relate to a given situation at hand. The analysis made with the use of the knife and the one that had to do with the spectacles (eye sight) of the lady across the street reveal how much ones personal experience and the ability to relate to a given scenario greatly influence our decision making.
I agree with you Tagoe, ones personal experience and the ability to relate to a given scenario greatly influence our decision making. I was amazed by how clever juror #8 was and his ability to pay attention to minute details. His last explanation about the marks on the lady’s nose really hit the nail on the head and negated her testimony that the other jurors was holding on to as reason for their guilty vote. His experiences made him very knowledgeable.
Shanice, it was interesting that you brought up the topic about those who are trying to forget about their past, because I see that too. Memory works in a funny way, the more we want to forget about something, the more we end up reminding ourselves about it. We cannot forget everything about the past since our present and future includes similarities and difference to what we have been though. You cannot be defined by who you are at the moment. There are people out there whose past have a huge impact on their future. Our past experience, lessons and mistakes shape us the people who we are today.
Mr. foreman, who is responsible for keeping the jury organized, started the session by having the jurors vote without discussing the case. This voting procedure fails to promote open discussion that will allow the jurors to explore the case and come to a conclusion through deliberation. Luckily, all but the 8th juror voted guilty, which forces the jurors to discuss the case. The second voting procedure took place when the 8th juror suggested having an anonymous vote. The use of an anonymous vote allowed the jurors to vote freely without being judged. This voting procedure was not only used to make a decision. Rather, it was a strategy to identify any feeling of uncertainty or doubt.
The response by some of the jurors was negative. In fact, two had an emotional outburst. For example, the third juror restated the facts in an aggressive manner. He had no interest listening to opposing views. Although he insisted his reason for pleading guilty were based on “facts”, it was later revealed that he shared a similar experience with his son. That said, the third juror was displacing his anger on the defendant. The 10th juror also had an emotional outburst. He also based his reasoning on the “facts” presented in the case. His reasoning revealed that he was prejudice. In both examples, the facts were used to justify personal beliefs and attitudes, which explains why the two jurors were deeply offended by the changes in votes.
The 8th juror uses emotional and personal experiences to his advantage to make valid points. When the 8th juror accused the third juror of being a sadist, the third juror exclaimed “I’m going to kill you.” Interestingly, this phase was often exchanged in daily conversations. It was one of the “facts” presented in the case. The 8th juror responded “but your really not going to kill me are you?” This point revealed how loosely the term was used. It also made the juror’s question the reasoning as to why the defendant said the same phrase to his father. Similarly, the 4th juror argued that the defendant was unable the remember the character names of the movie he watched on the night of the murder, suggesting the defendant is lying. Moreover, he argued that the defendant should be been able to remember with or without emotional distress. The 8th juror put his memory to test and asked him what he has done each day before the trial. Ironically, on the third day, he went to a movie with his wife and was unable to remember the details of the movie. The 8th juror used his own argument against him to demonstrate how easily things are forgotten. Both examples revealed the importance of incorporating emotional and personal experiences in political discussions. By doing so, individuals are able to find ways to relate and empathize with the topics that are being discussed.
Nickiesha, it was very interesting point that individual should not cooperate their emotional and personal experiences into political decisions. Both juror 3 and juror 9 had heavily used their personal and emotional issues to judge this case. Therefore, their biasedness can end up a boy’s life even though he did not commit the murder. In this situation, I would recommend more diverse juries in any murder cases. It would help jurors to come up with the right decision.
Although 11 of the jurors walked into the conference room without an ounce of uncertainty as to the guilt of the boy on trial, over the course of a few hours, a single juror with a strong ethical conviction and an even stronger conscience was able to successfully sway the opinion of even the most stubborn and ignorant of the men, and brought them all to reason. Rather than thoughtlessly accepting the information presented during the trial, Juror 8 uses a systematic approach of reasoning and discovers inconsistencies and flaws in the evidence presented. By recreating the stories given during the trial, and walking the jury through the sequence of events, Juror 8 forces the others to dissect and examine the evidence, allowing them to arrive at, and agree with, his conclusion. The jurors in the film clearly come from all walks of life and are diverse in societal class, profession, financial means, temperament, age, and personality. These differences are strongly exhibited in the manner by which each juror communicates, dresses and looks. I found this to be an important nuance that strengthens the idea that a strong and deliberative argument can convince anyone – regardless of the level of opposition and adversity.
I found it intriguing that at no point during the film was a single name mentioned – not the boy convicted of the crime, not the father who was murdered, and not a single one of the twelve jurors who each had an important part to play. By reducing the jurors to nameless, highly opinionated personalities, the film draws on and draws out the emotions and reactions of both the jurors in the film and the viewers watching it. These emotions, both positive and negative, help in shaping and solidifying the decisions of many of the jurors. For example, the psychotic outburst exhibited by Juror 4 when he attacked Juror 8 and screamed “I’ll kill you!” after being called a sadist was a powerful scene that demonstrated that there was, in fact, a possibility that the son who screamed those very same words may not have killed his father.
Deliberation is a process by which an individual carefully and thoughtfully considers a subject matter in an effort to arrive at a logical decision; it is an action that is exercised with great caution and intent. “Twelve Angry Men” is a film that encapsulates the art and demonstrates the power of deliberation in a brilliant fashion. Of great significance is the underlying lesson in this film. That is, he who approaches an issue with an open and inquisitive mind, and examines evidence in a systematic and deliberative fashion, will arrive at a much more precise and convincing decision. An individual who is capable of maintaining composure in the face of retaliation, peer pressure, and aggressive confrontation is most successful in influencing public opinion. That being said, Juror 8 is a deliberative genius.
Excellent points and so well said. I’d only add that the deliberative process belongs to the group not just the individual. Juror 8 is a persuasive genius.
Xena – interesting point about the lack of names throughout the movie, not just for the jury but the defendant and his father as well. The director truly went to great lengths to hide any distinguishing details about every single character to ensure that viewer had zero biases at the start of the film, instead letting the deliberations reveal key facts and biases. In thinking about it more, considering how the jurors debated about the culture of the defendant through the deliberations, I imagine that if we as viewers knew the defendants name at the start, our judgement could be clouded as well in a way that would have taken away from the movie.
Xena & Doug – I also believe the namelessness in the film plays a significant role. I think it gives the audience agency, and, to a lesser degree, situates us as a part of the deliberation. Furthermore, I agree that this tactic decreases the availability of biases. That being said, I also believe it complicates the audience’s ability to reason. Without names, the audience defines characters by their language, demeanor, and occupation, when given. In other words, each of the juror’s statements adds to their character. Understanding the character’s nuances confronts the potential pitfall of stereotyping. The unique agency of the audience effectively puts people’s holistic foot forward, and can help them make a rational determination.
From the beginning of the meeting, Juror # 8 votes not guilty to the case because he doubts the validity of the evidence and reasoning provided in the court. In establishing the procedure for each juror to go around the table and explain why they voted “not guilty”, allowed for Juror # 8 to enhance his understanding of the case, in order to make a decision based on the facts. In the end, the decision made was not as clear cut as the 11 other jurors originally thought. Therefore, the procedure of going around the table and having everyone voice their argument proved to be productive. Essentially, the Jurors voted “not guilty” because the reasoning and evidence provided in court was not reliable. Their discussion of the evidence and arguments provided in court proved that the reasoning provided was faulty and therefore it created a reasonable doubt for them to vote “not guilty.”
In terms of voting procedures, the most beneficial procedure was the secret ballot. This secret ballot allowed for each Juror to express themselves without any peer pressure. As a result of the secret ballot, one of the Jurors (who we find out is Juror # 9) votes “not guilty” in accordance with Juror # 8 because he wants to hear all the arguments aloud. This sways the vote to a 2:10 ratio which grants Juror # 8 enough support for everyone to listen to his reasoning.
However, some Jurors refused to listen to Juror # 8 because of their own predisposed opinions. One of the jurors referred to slums as “the bleeding ground for criminals.” Another juror had his personal experience with his son which cause him to criticize children today and generalize them as all having bad behavior. These individuals allowed their prejudice to the facts of the case to affect the decisions they made because they were a part of the group who voted “guilty.” However, we come to realize that although they claimed they were basing their decisions off the facts of the case, it was merely based off of their predisposed opinions and not proper rationale. This is proven by Juror # 3, after he breaks into tears at the end and begins to rip a picture of him and his son, after voting not guilty.
The demographic composition of the jury, allowed for insight in various ways. For example one of the juror is from the “slums” just like the boy in the case. In utilizing his cultural experience from living there, he knows for a fact that a boy who lived in the slum all his life would have used the knife differently (or used a different knife all together, such as a switchblade). This juror’s experience caused the jurors to discuss the validity of the reasoning as it relates to the knife. Also, Juror # 9 (the older gentleman) utilizes his own experience of age to claim that the testimony of the old man living downstairs was just a result of him seeking attention. With such distinctions in demographics, new areas of the case became open for discussion.
Throughout the dialogue the rules governing who speaks vary. In the beginning, the majority of the jurors seems open to an organized conversation by selecting a leader, taking turns to talk and taking the first vote. However, as time goes by, some of the jurors start running out of patience and try to impose their priorities and biases. One could say that the lack of instituted rules – the only one they have is that they must reach a verdict unanimously – leads to power struggles among the jurors as well as taking the conversation in unexpected turns.
Furthermore, the jury uses both secret and public ballots and the decision making process seems to be governed by personal opinions, biases and priorities. Only about a third of the jury looks strictly concerned with facts and evidence; the background, physical appearance, income and other aspects of the accused keep coming up throughout the discussion and are presented as relevant information by some jurors.
Although, most people would say they expect a jury to reach their decision led by reason alone, the film highlights the unpredictability of a justice system based on the spoken word and on a jury which is integrated by people from different educational backgrounds. It is evident how some of the jurors do not apporach their responsibility seriously as well as how some of them utilize irrelevant information to reach their vote.
Finally, the jury consists of men only; however the film portrays men from a diverse socioeconomic background. This aspect and the influence of emotion in the decision process are defining factors that lead to the release of the accused. At least two jurors can relate to the background in which the accuser was raised and the final “not guilty” vote emerges from a bad father’s emotional wound who is being pressured, to some extent, by the group.
Federico, I’m glad you brought up the lack of instituted rules in the jury room. It was something that definitely stood out for me. I have never served on a jury, so I am not sure if this is still something that occurs today? Do you (or anyone else) have any insight on this?
I am internally debating whether or not a stronger structure would have positively or negatively impacted the effectiveness of the decision making process. Part of me thinks the lack of structure allowed for more freedom of discussion and debate. On the other hand, I think a decision may have been reached more quickly if there was a better structure (although I am not sure the most factually accurate decision would have been made). Does anyone have additional thoughts on this?
That’s a good question. I think the loose structure led to the initial 11 vs 1 dynamic, since some jurors seemed to initially raise their hands purely to align with what appeared to be a majority. But at the same time, the loose structure allowed the lone dissenter the freedom he needed to recruit others to his side. In the end, I think trusting the jury system means having faith that out of 12 people, enough of them will truly understand the importance and be willing to do what they think is right. A loose structure flows from that ideal. Having something more formal makes it easier for people to hind behind rules and policy, rather than speaking openly.
Doug and Keri,
I have never been on a jury but I can definitely see the benefit of having as fewer rules as possible. In most cases in our everyday lives, one has to react to, or obediently follow procedures. This situations require critical thinking, leadership, empathy, and many more qualities every citizen is expected to utilize but not everyone is ready to step up to that task.
Keeping in mind some of the cases recently covered in the media, I am uncomfortable with a system that asks me to have “faith” it will work, but at the same time, I can’t think of a system that could prevent individual irresponsibility.
Hi Keri. I haven’t served as a juror either but from the experience of my family who have, the film’s portrayal was accurate. They jurors are left in the room alone and juror #1 takes the lead. I agree with Dough that the loose structure gives freedom for discussion and for people to be swayed based on the rebuttals given for the evidence.
Federico – I completely agree with you when you state that emotions heavily influenced the decision of the jury. Given their diverse backgrounds, even though their race and gender are the same, the viewer can see that the makeup of a person is more than just their race and gender. The emotional diversity of jury I found incredibly significant in this movie. When I was employed with the District Attorney’s Office in Texas, I consistently saw how jurors get emotionally invested, even when told by a judge that the decision should be based purely on fact. I would imagine deciding the fate of life or death of a child would cause you to be even more sympathetic and emotionally invested that in, say, a land dispute.
The foreman kept order by respecting a simple hand-raising system that allowed everyone to speak without interruption if adhered to. To help understand the dynamics of the room, he mixed closed ballots to protect secrecy and voice votes. Once the jurors understand the opinions in the room and why people held them, people began to systematically access each opinion fact by fact. A few jurors allowed person feeling like going to a sports game and personal hatreds cloud their opinions entirely. Racism was an underlying tone for some jurors and the all white males in the room judged the conduct of the defendant and the witnesses.
The foreman set a procedure at the beginning of the deliberations in which each juror sitting around the table and explaining their reasoning for their vote of “guilty” or “not guilty” by the order of the juror number assigned to each of them. Seemingly, this begins quite productively, as it would give each juror a fair turn to speak. However, this process is often interrupted by a juror who cannot wait for his turn to express his views and/or someone who wants to be heard from again, usually in response to someone else. The constant interruptions lead to high levels of tension and I can’t help but wonder if the hand-calling system would have been more effective. The more I mull over the idea, however, I believe that system would have likely broken down, as well; it is very hard to get a group of grown men to follow a system that is designed for school children. While the procedures for speaking were in place, they were rarely adhered to. This may seem counterproductive, however at the end of day they did what they were brought in to do, reach a verdict.
The voting procedure is a simple show of hands at first, followed by a closed ballot on the second round. The remaining votes are switched back to show of hands. However as each round of voting wears on, simply stating that a vote has change became enough. The open voting after the first few rounds gives coverage for jurors to change their minds.
Emotions played a huge role many of juror’s decisions. Hatred of people who grew up in “slums”, being a person who grew up in “slums”, unresolved issues with a son, not liking the way one juror was speaking to an elder juror, being an immigrant, as well as many others, all played a role, not only into how the jurors voted and the reasons they voted in those ways, but also how they spoke to and treated each other.
A large factor of why emotions ran high was the weather. The extreme heat was alluded to, and outright spoken about throughout the film. Jurors sweat through their clothes and were constantly dabbing themselves with their handkerchiefs in hopes of some relief. The physical discomfort of the jurors certainly affected their emotions. In fact, pure emotion was the reason the last juror switched his vote.
The demographic composition is more diverse than it would first appear. On the surface, it is a room of twelve White, male jurors. However, as deliberations progress, it becomes clear that they are a diverse group, certainly not by race but, rather. by socio-economics. The group includes blue-collars workers, such as the painter, and white-collar workers, such as the banker and the juror in advertising. Finally, the ages of the men also make a difference seen, for example, as the old man has a different outlook on the world than the rest.
Yaffa, I really enjoy your take on the film. Specifically, the point you make about the socio-economic component of the group emphasizes the significance of class and economics during political deliberation. To understand people one has to empathize with their lifestyle, for better or for worse. The presence and participation of different classes is crucial in realizing a truly democratic society.
I could not help put think about how the current American governing system is obscured by techniques such as gerrymandering and law cases such as Citizens United v. FEC. These aspects of our political system are making the participation opportunities of citizens more and more difficult. 12 Angry Men serves as a great time piece to emphasize how disparate American democracy has grown in the past half century.
Yeffa, I agree their individual life experiences made them more diverse then they appear to be. Even though they all fit into one demographic ,their life experiences and the stage at which they were in their life had a direct effect on how they each approached the situation. In the end their divergent views and experiences helped them to arrive at a verdict.
When the jury consisting of all white men entered the deliberation room, juror # 1 decided to take the lead and requested that they all sat in according with their juror number. This was his attempt to create organization to determine who will speak and the order in which their votes would be recorded. This i believe was a productive strategy. However, the open voting procedure, by a simple raise of hand was counterproductive. One would anticipate that after hearing the evidence presented for the case, the men would take the time to deliberate in order to deliver a sound verdict; this was not the case at first. Some of the men had no interest to discuss what was presented to them and for their own selfish reasons were content to deliver a guilty verdict in order to quickly leave and attend to their commitments. A few were on the fence, but once the first round of open voting begun , through the influence of peer pressure they voted guilty, hence the open vote was counterproductive.
Juror #8, unlike the others was keen in analyzing the evidence presented and wanted to make a way for a fair deliberation. He accomplished this by voting not guilty, forcing the men to reevaluate their vote. Juror #8 had an excellent strategy for the decision making process. Not only did he ask each person to state their case for their initial vote, he presented reasons why he voted not guilty and request a secret ballot be taken. This was a more productive way of voting and gave the men an opportunity to express their true thoughts without being identified.
Many of the men claimed they were making a decision off the evidence only, when in actuality a few of them were making a decision off prejudice notions. One juror defended his guilty vote by saying “slums are breeding grounds for criminals.” This juror was quick to apply the broken window theory and assumed that because of the environment the child was raised in, he was hostile and unproductive. On the other hand, knowing the environment the child was raised in, some jurors managed to use empathy to deliver and support a not guilty verdict. Here we can see that the role of emotion was both positive and negative. One juror had a difficult time raising his son and felt that all boys were rude to their fathers. This made him support a guilty verdict, whereas the juror who was raised in the slums knew that anyone raised in that environment would know how to hold the knife properly that the boy allegedly used to kill his father. This was a positive outcome of the diverse demography of the men who made up the jury.
As noted from the assigned readings, a key part of deliberation is to set aside any prejudice and respect others point of view. Juror #8 was successful in creating a path for deliberation among the jurors. He created room for reasonable doubt and was able to come to a unanimous vote of not guilty.
“12 Angry Men” comments on society and societal phenomena that range from scary to virtuous. The characters’ ability to convince one another is based in fear. The jurors are afraid to be on the wrong side of the truth, or the wrong side of what the majority perceives to be the truth. This begs the chilling question of whether or not a majority can make something true. In a court case, like the one portrayed in the movie, where one of the truths is simply doubt, a juror like Juror 8 can argue that his truth is safer. With even an inkling of doubt, jurors are spared the knowledge that someone’s death was decided on by their vote.
Juror 8’s insistence on reflection out of respect for life and a suspects’ dignity is what saved the young man facing the chair. His claims that his intent was only to give a life the opportunity that it deserves. The discussion does far more than that. One of the jurors that held out on a guilty verdict until near the end commented, “You’re like everybody else. You think too much, get mixed up.”. Such a statement says a lot about society, and its acceptance is a scary prospect.
Still, it was Juror 8’s push just to talk about the case, to think about the details a bit longer, that spurred an extensive conversation and a turnaround in decision. The flip of nearly the entire room’s verdict came about just because of one convincing individual.
“12 Angry Men” comments on society and societal phenomena that range from scary to virtuous. The characters’ ability to convince one another is based in fear. The jurors are afraid to be on the wrong side of the truth, or the wrong side of what the majority perceives to be the truth. This begs the chilling question of whether or not a majority can make something true. In a court case, like the one portrayed in the movie, where one of the truths is simply doubt, a juror like Juror 8 can argue that his truth is safer. With even an inkling of doubt, jurors are spared the knowledge that someone’s death was decided on by their vote.
One of the jurors that held out on a guilty verdict until near the end commented, “You’re like everybody else. You think too much, get mixed up.”. Such a statement says a lot about society, and its acceptance is a scary prospect. Those who focused on the “facts”, and not the possibility of doubt, were the same characters who constantly claimed throughout the movie that an exploration of possibility was a twisting of fact. These individuals claimed rationality, and yet denied one of the basic principles of reality. The possibility of alternatives, perception, and doubt were ignored by those who were labeling dissenters nothing but hot air.
Emotion was a large factor in the eventual decision. It was Juror 8’s insistence on reflection out of respect for life and individual dignity that spurred the conversation. Each juror thereafter turned his decision once one, or too many, of the details became personal. The scene where Juror 3 shares a bit about his son had to have some relevance in the plot of the movie, with such intensity and allotted time. Many of the determinants in the jury’s verdict are shaky. The only concrete fact is doubt.
In “12 Angry Men”, the main procedure governing the jurors is the act of each juror speaking individually in an arbitrary sequence of participation, which was 1-12. This structure was ignored and the jurors interrupted each other when they felt their opinion was more important, leading to several breaks in communication. Logic and proof points took a backseat to opinions and impulsive feelings. If the rules for speaking were taken seriously by the jurors then I believe the decision-making procedure would have been less tense and it could have yielded a more direct path to a rationally sound, fact-driven conclusion.
The role of emotion played a significantly vital role in the film as well. Because the jurors were not political by occupation, the guiding principles of governance were mostly absent in their debate. That being the case, they acted on emotions, which led to a handful of fallacious arguments. Anger was one of the most powerful emotions that changed the landscape of the procedure, especially the anger distributed by Juror #10. At one point in the film, Juror #10 lashes out against the other eleven people in the room, claiming that the kid on trial is akin to an animal from the slums. His heated reaction is seemingly a byproduct of other jurors trying to make sense of the case and not convict the kid on loose and, somewhat unbelievable causes. As we see in some political environments today, the bullying and fiery rhetoric of Juror #10 influences citizens to form opinions through fear. In a liberal democracy, this approach to politics should be questioned and eradicated. There is no place for fear mongering in a state that supports freethinking.
The demographic composition of the jurors undoubtedly had an effect on how the procedure went and the standing of the outcome. That being said, the role of classism was at the forefront of the film. After Juror #8 claimed that the court’s argument wasn’t fully sound and when he asked the room of jurors to unpack the case more because the verdict was fatal, a clash of the haves and have-nots took place. As I mentioned, Juror #10 broadcasts nasty slurs against lower-class individuals who live slums, which inspired crude classist and racist remarks. The arguments in the film became personal rather than about the kid’s case: the kid’s life.
The brilliance of this film is in the namelessness of the jurors. Because they are numbers and not names, the other jurors effectively can’t diminish another’s opinion via classist or racist means. Instead, the jurors have to talk to each without these societal facets that have, time and time again, complicated civilized equality. This element of the film breaks down the human condition and, to a degree, encourages individuals to think more holistically about those around them.
Logical reasoning and evidence are crucial components to the drama at the center of 12 Angry Men as they play a conflicting role throughout the film. While these analytical tools are the primary means by which the city prosecutor builds the case against the young defendant before the onset of the movie they are also the means by which Juror 8, played by Henry Fonda, deconstruct the prosecution’s evidence. The case against the kid, as he is known in the film, is based on a variety of evidence that collectively point to the conclusion that he killed his father. This type of reasoning plays a key role in swaying many of the early converts during the jury’s deliberation but is especially crucial in getting Juror 4, the stockbroker, to change his vote. This scene is presented as a dramatic focal point as it is unclear until this point in the film whether the stockbroker’s cool rationality is due to his commitment to reason or a result of his stubborn personality.
In addition to using reasoning and evidence as a means of establishing reasonable doubt in the minds of the rest of the jurors, Juror 8 also employs emotion as a tactical means of building his case. Specifically, he provokes Jurors 3 and 10, played by Lee J. Cobb and Ed Begley respectively, into revealing their emotional biases. This has the effect of both discrediting them and getting them to switch their vote. In the case of Juror 10, this comes in the form of a bigoted tirade against Puerto Ricans. In Juror 3’s case, it is slowly revealed that this character harbors a masochistic love of punishment for punishment’s sake. Fonda’s character doesn’t do much to goad these characters into showing their true nature, but once they do, the discrediting effect for the rest of the jury is immediate. In this sense, emotion has a somewhat positive effect on the deliberative process as exposes the biases inherent in those jurors less committed to rational thinking.
The demographic makeup of the jury is another source of the drama at the center of 12 Angry Men. Although the all-white male composition of the jury would seem biased in its lack of diversity by today’s standards, Reginald Rose’s script makes a point in highlighting the different socio-economic as well as cultural backgrounds of each of the jurors. Each member of the jury brings a different perspective to the table and contributes in some way to the deliberation that takes place. That each member of the jury appeared to have some education and was employed in some fashion may have had something to do with their commitment to seeing the debate through and making a truly unanimous decision (although it should be noted that Juror 7, played by Jack Warden, had to be shamed into making the right decision as his initial motivation for voting was to get out in time for a ball game). As active participants in society, they had a means of relating with each other that went beyond their various backgrounds which in turn made it possible for them to cooperate long enough to reach a decision.
Convinced the persecution was right and had proven their case, the majority of the jurors can in with a quick conviction in mind. Juror number one’s leadership and the open nature to which he channeled the proceedings allowed for a healthy discussion. His use of different procedures in voting greatly influenced the outcome. At first, he allowed everyone to openly decide whether or not the kid was guilty and as the situation evolved he switch to secret ballots. The animosity of this system allowed people to vote sincerely without pressure and a feeling that they were being judge by the others.
At the start of the deliberation the majority of the jurors assumed the persecutions account of events to be accurate and was enough for them to base they decision solely on the facts presented and found no reason to question it. With juror number eight taking a different view, they were forced to take a second look and analyze the evidence presented by the persecution. It was during this analysis that the personal life experiences of the jurors’ came to play. It was obvious these personal experiences in life played a role in both their initial guilty vote and the eventual not guilty vote.
The jury was composed of mostly middle class white men. The fact that they were of the same demographic played a huge part in the decision making process. At the first vote they were all on the same page with the exception of juror number eight and were ready to pass a verdict and moved one. A little bit of diversity in the demographic would have brought in different perspectives from the word go. Being of the same demography later helped them to see through their personal differences and arrive at a final verdict.