Before the next class, watch the film comment on it in a way that responds to 3 or 4 of the following prompts: 1) What procedures were used in the film to govern who spoke? Were the rule for speaking productive or counter productive? 2) What voting procedures were used in the film to make decisions? What over arching rules were there for decision making? How did decision-making rules and procedures affect the outcome? 3) What role did reasoning and evidence play in the decision process? Were those who claimed to be basing their decision on “facts” always the most committed to the rational process? 4) What role did emotion play in the discussion. Was it positive, negative, or both? 5) Do you think the demographic composition of the jury affected the why it discussed the case and the outcome it reached? How? 6) What role did leadership play?
70 thoughts on “12 Angry Men”
Comments are closed.
The group started with an open vote that led to a situation where the only one who vote not-guilty had to defend his position, which was not a firm position in favor of not-guilty, but more so an expression of doubt. Instead, the group could have had a closed vote to avoid an adversarial discussion, and probed the case, the alibi, witness statements, motive and the evidence more systematically.
The leader of the group was weak and indecisive, and ground rules for the conversation were not established firmly beforehand, and so the discussion on the merits of the case against the defendant came in fits and starts. Weak leadership also allowed the couple of bullies to talk over other jurors derailing attempts to allow everyone to present their positions, which then allowed the discussion to frequently descend into ad hominem attacks.
The moral of the movie, in my opinion, was reason prevailing over prejudice (especially in the case of one of the bullies), emotion (in case of the last holdout) and plain ignorance (in case of the people who just wanted to get out fast) that can cloud judgement.
In short, the conversation was framed the wrong way from the beginning. The leader was indecisive and allowed others to derail whatever rules he established, such as going around the table. Emotion, prejudice and ignorance were evident in the process, but ultimately a reason prevailed.
Finally, I think Henry Fonda did a great job, but the old guy was my favorite.
I agree with your comment that the assigned leader was weak and the impacts that, that had on the conversation. I do think, however, that a new leader emerged pretty quickly (even though it was not official). Juror number 8 became the clear conversation facilitator. His calm mannerisms and concern regarding the holes in the evidence led eventually to the “not-guilty” verdict.
Sam, thank you for bringing to my attention a chance to refocus on the foundation of the “12 Angry Men” deliberation, which was initiated with an open vote. That decision probably began the spark that started the entire discord. A secret voting system throughout the deliberation probably would have minimized several of the confrontations and outbursts. Afterall in a democratic environment everyone is entitled to their opinion eventhough it does not need the approval of others.
In addition I made an error on my own blog in response to the film which I reliazed after reading your comments. The designated leader of the group was the jury foreman, the coach, who like many others in the group had his own personal issues. In retrospect I felt that Henry Fonda’s character was the unspoken leader. Although he wasn’t identified as such, he possessed the characteristics needed as a role model for the group when he displayed fairness, honesty, humility, inclusion, compassion and understanding. I did not see the jury foreman as a leader at all. The jury foreman may have been the designated leader but Henry Fonda’s character was the true leader, eventually celebrated by the 11 other angry men. I also agree that reason prevailed over prejudice in a 1960’s movie which is still relevant in 2017.
I see the 8th juror as the saviour of the defendant because he stood his ground and made sure justice was served and also challenges all witnesses said about the boy which led to decent and reasoning at the end of the day providing the jurors with doubts in their minds as to the guilt or otherwise of the defendant.
“12 Angry Men” was a great example of using a simple premise of jury duty to reveal a complex component in the legal system of reasonable doubt. An organized system of assigning speaking assignments was dictated by juror numbers in addition to their seating arraignment. That system proved to be fair and equitable with each member respecting that the majority of the time. The methods of voting varied from secret ballots to raising hands in addition to verbal responses. I felt that the overaching rule for decision making that it was fair, consistent and considerate to take all of the facts of the plaintiff’s background into account. One very important impact on the decision making and thought pattern of the plantiff was his history of being physically and mentally abused. The rules for decision making and procedures eventually forced each of the “Men” to internalize and question f they were being fair to the plaintiff or to look at the “facts” and not take them for the witnesses word and question if the facts were consistent with the testimony and evidence.
If it weren’t for the “talking” to bring out issues of reasonable doubt amongst the “12 Angry Men” the young plantiff would have probably been found guilty of murder and received the death penalty. The juror who was the first to state “not guilty”, Henry Fonda’s character, actually saved his life because initially the other eleven jurors started off with a guilty consensus immediately. His character went down the line and made each man doubt himself and question his own line of thinking based on individual insecurities. An irony of the film was that those who claimed to be basing their decision making on facts were the least committed to the fairest form of justice. For example one of the men wanted to vote guilty because he needed to get to a baseball game. The saddest was the man who had a dysfunctional relationship with his own son that he hadn’t seen in a few years and appeared to project his hate for his son onto the plantiff.
The display of emotion was huge in this film. The air was tense and filled with testosterone and as hot as the temperature. The emotions were both positive and negative. For example sometimes jurors were being bullied in choosing a side. There were points where fistfights almost took place, the elderly man was called names for some of his ideas and on the other hand they would apologize after an outburst and even stick up for one another when they thought another juror was pushing boundaries. The juror with the son’s picture who was so tough and insulted many throughout the film even cried at the end and Henry Fonda went over to him compassionately for solace.
I don’t believe the demographic of men played a nurturing role in their decision like females may have but I do think women could have made the argument of reasoning just as well. For me it wasn’t the level of intelligence both women and men possess that quality. It felt like since men don’t usually show a lot of raw emotion the contrast of the outcome was shocking and effective. The men’s emotion was explosive, firm and sometimes abrasive on the other hand the leadership of the group was calmer, thoughtful and level-headed.
It’s interesting that you said the overarching rule for decision making was fair and consistent. I believe otherwise initially. But after making the distinction between speaking and decision making, I can see the merit of your conclusion. I think this movie prompts me to believe that secret ballot is at best when it comes to voting. No speaking is necessary or allowed unless the chat box of reasoning is opened. I’m interested to hear other suggestions if there is a better way to organize a jury with these angry men.
Also, I assume you meant the defendant not the plaintiff? At least my impression was the boy being accused of the murder is the defendant.
It is interesting that you didn’t believe that the demographic of the men played a nurturing role in their decision because the topic did come up a few times. The one man showed his prejudiced against the boy based on his social status of being in the slums, and made comments that offended the other man who actually stated he himself came from the slums. Also the man who initially voted not guilty, I think felt bad for the boy because of his demographic and upbringing, saying he was not given a fair chance at life. I think even though we often may not believe it or want to admit it, we often make stereotypes or conclusions based on our own demographic background or the demographic background of others.
Hi Quyen,
Strongly agree with you on how stereotypical others can be and are quick to jump to conclusion based on demographics. The term “those people” was also mentioned, and that’s just prove how others can be judged based on ethnic background, the color of their skin and yes the area in which they live. No one bother to ask the question if the boy really did it or not and what was the motive for committing such a crime except for the one”not guilty” response. If it wasn’t for that one individual who choose to look at the evidence instead of passing judgement, the boy would not have been acquitted.
I agree with you the boy’s social status and or his area of residence as a boy from the poor suburbs played to the prejudice of most of the jurors. Alas, reasoning and rationality as well as justice prevailed and the boy was found not guilty
The role of reasoning and evidence in this movie was particularly interesting. The jurors who were most passionate about their guilty votes claimed to be basing that on what they viewed as incontrovertible evidence: the testimony of the woman across the street who said she saw the defendant stab his father. Henry Fonda’s character, who was the only to vote not guilty from start to finish, was much more ambivalent about his vote. He never claimed he could say for sure that the defendant had not stabbed his father based on the evidence. But he insisted the whole time there was reasonable doubt. In order to convince the others of that, he presented the evidence they had through new lenses — by pulling out an exact replica of the allegedly unique knife the assailant had used, by asking jurors to think about the noise level of the L train that would have obscured other sounds, etc. Although he was less sure the defendant was not guilty than other jurors were sure he was guilty, he, and the jurors who eventually joined him, were the ones using rational thinking.
I think emotion had a lot to do with the decisions of the jurors who spent most of the time voting guilty. They stereotyped, probably at least partially subconsciously, the defendant as a typical criminal and considered the case open-and-shut. The jurors who voted not guilty, I think, relied much more on rationale. They considered his upbringing and the effects his abusive past had on his life without resorting to the easier, prejudiced story they had heard in court about the defendant. They wanted to truly carry out justice, whereas the jurors who held on to their guilty votes wanted to see a punishment for the crime and used anger, indifference, and prejudices to make the easiest decision available.
I do think the demographic composition of the jury impacted the way the decision-making process played out. We don’t know much about the socioeconomic backgrounds of the jurors, but white wealthy men generally are the most privileged group in American society and often tend to judge people with less privilege more harshly, and assign their shortcomings and mistakes to personal deficiencies rather than structural oppression. More racial, socioeconomic, and gender diversity would have almost surely changed the conversation because of different perspectives. Henry Fonda’s character did a really job of calling out biases and sympathizing with the defendant’s difficult upbringing, but had it not been for him, the rest of the jurors would have convicted the defendant without a second thought.
Leadership was another interesting factor here. The assigned leader, the foreman, was fairly weak and ineffective as a leader. He didn’t establish clear rules, he didn’t really maintain order, and he didn’t facilitate a productive discussion. Henry Fonda’s character emerged as more of a true leader simply because he kept calm and pushed people to think differently. I think that happens more often than not in real-life deliberation as well. The assigned leader based on power or position is often not the same as the person with the strongest leadership and management capabilities.
In terms of leadership, I agree that the assigned leader did a very poor job. In fact, for early on in the deliberations, it was clear that most of the jurors rejected him as a leader because of his carefree attitude. One of the important characteristics of leadership, I believe, is conviction. Someone who is unsure of him/herself will have a difficult time convincing anyone of anything.
I believe you make a very good explanation of how jury’s demographic composition impacted the decision making process. Though one has the right to a fair trial, no one can predict truly the attitudes, opinions or beliefs of any juror. More diversity in the group would have changed the conversation in the room. Those jurors that believed he could grow up and move past his upbringing if found innocent were a minority in the room and were quickly attacked.
I agree with you elora because throughout the case we see the main reason and focus of the jurors who voted guilty from the beginning were either stemmed from prejudice or some form of stereotype. For instance the last juror who stood by his decision of guilty until the end based his decision in the fact that all children eventually turn their backs on their parents later on in life. His own son have not spoken to him in over two years because of a fight they had. The other juror who believed because the young man grew up in the slums, had a difficult childhood from the death of his mother and placement throughout the foster care system he was bound to be nothing more than a thief and murderer.
I agree with you on the importance of different perspectives, especially in a jury deliberation. The 12 Angry Men jury is rather homogenous and the majority held a presumption of the boy on trial from the start. I would attribute that assumption to lack of perspective. How willingly and casually the 11 white male jurors were willing to condemn another human to death. You’re right that Fonda’s character was the ethical voice of reason. I wonder how rare a presence like his would be in a similar scenario.
Hello Elora
I agree with regarding the role of emotion in the film. I think it played an important role since many of the jurors were drove as you mentioned by anger and did not even consider for one second the idea of the boy not to be guilty. That did not cross their minds they only wanted to see what sounded reasonable in their perspectives and not see the other side that actually gave a sense of hope for the boy.
Hi Diana,
I agree with you that emotions did play a strong part in this movie. Emotions contribute to the decision making as to whether the boy is guilty or not guilty and it lead the jury wanting to determine the boy’s fate without looking at the evidence closely.
12 Angry Men
The 12 Angry Men is a film about jurors deliberating a young boy’s fate who was accused of killing his father, a premeditated murder. Originally this case would have be an open and shut case if eleven members of the jury had their way, but one objection to send an eighteen year old to his death lead the others to discussing the case; reviewing the evidence; question whether the witnesses were reliable or not; motive for the killing and if the boy has an alibi.
The procedures used in the film to govern who spoke is, each juror take turns by their number, so juror number one was first to speak and then the second and it goes on to the next number. This rule was more productive allowing everyone to state their opinion as to why they believe the boy is guilty and why he may not be guilty. Hearing everyone’s opinion lead to a more constructive way to prove if the boy is innocent or not. A preliminary vote was done as to who believe the boy was guilty or not but after discussing the case a secret written ballot was cast. The overarching rule is “12 or nothing” meaning all 12 members of the jury need to come to the same decision as to what should happen to the boy. There were eleven votes to one, which leads to a call for discussion. To determine whether a person should die or not a jury must at least take the time to discuss the case before coming to a verdict. Having do so lead to other members changing their guilty vote to not-guilty, because although the boy maybe guilty there were not enough evidence to prove it. The witnesses were unreliable and the weapon used in the killing could be easily purchased at a porn shop, meaning anyone but the boy could have done the killing.
The boy’s background came into question and shows that he has a rough life growing up. But reasoning and evidence play a viable role in the decision process because the members of the jury begin to question the facts that were laid in front of them; what makes a boy kill his own father? For those who based their decisions on “facts” are not always the most committed to the rational process because their decision can be linked to their own experience. The role of emotions were strong because members begin to think what it’s like to be a parent or a son and it was not at all positive, it was more like negative emotions that begins to surface, making the men angry and wanting to say the boy was guilty.
Demographic composition of the jury did affect the way the case was discussed and its outcome. The fact that the jury was made up of all white male make decision making difficult. The term “these people” was used a few times and so the boy’s character was also being judge using the term “these people” again. Should someone be sent to his death based on his ethnicity or should it be the evidence that counts against him? The jury was also consisting of older men than the accused, the same as the victim. Having older men on the jury gives them the ability to reason based on knowledge which leads them to question how reliable the old woman testimony was. Looking at all the evidence and questioning it makes the jury finally come to a decision that the boy was not guilty. The one juror who wanted to stick to his vote that the boy was guilty was coming from a dark place based on the relationship he has with his son, a relationship that left him sad and angry.
The leadership role plays a positive role in this case because it allow the men to discuss the case in an orderly and timely fashion and allow them to come to a decision that was accepted by all.
Hello Shawnett great English 101 with the introductory summary of the movie’s main idea. It would have definitely been an open and shut case from the beginning vote, but not for the right or just reasons. Unfortunately, initially, I don’t feel that the 11 Angry Men really gave the idea of capital punishment a major thought for an eighteen -year-old plaintiff. Considering they were all that age also at some point. They all seemed to be blinded by individual motives, experiences or beliefs that were mostly negative.
One of the best and easiest ways to organize a group is in sequential order so that did work to keep the opportunity to speak in order. The system highlighted order vs. kaos. Yes, although the men entered as twelve individuals they emerged as a unified group coming out of deliberation. That was a goal of the founding fathers of the Constitution in 1787, for many groups of people to come together as one, under one government. The composition of the jury was homogenous with 12 Caucasian men. It could have been a different movie with other group demographics. I thought Fonda’s character was a cool, calm and collected contrast to the hot, temperamental and disjointed persona of the group and its individuals.
Agreed! leadership does play a positive role, whether directly or indirectly, especially when a person’s life is in the balance. As displayed leadership would comb through the details and emotions to arrive at the most logical solution. If the aspect of leadership was removed, the outcome of the movie would have been terribly different and unfair. Somebody had to do it and it was done.
12 Angry Men” was an astute film to present the significance of reasoning and evidence in such an important deliberation matter like a death sentence. It is important to highlight the appointed leader of the group, was weak, and not influential or dominant enough to set and account for established rules, which was counterproductive. For not holding all accountable, and at one point even giving up his duties due to frustration, demonstrated the inability to efficiently lead this group of men in such a predicament. Despite the voting rules being alternated from a show of hands to anonymous pieces of paper, I feel this was the only time there was an overarching rule, since all members had the opportunity to vote.
Reasoning and evidence played the main role in the decision in the defendants’ life. Thanks to the reasoning of Henry Fonda’s character with the evidence that was presented, he could convince the other eleven jurors of the perceptive behind his vote, eventually having all cast the same ballot. He also rationalized that many of the jurors were casting their vote based on emotion or preconceptions, which the film demonstrates how it can be a negative and a positive. Yes, the emotions were precariously tense among the strangers, with offensive slurs and insults, but it also brought out how these emotions influenced the way each juror voted. Henry Fonda’s character used this to present the perceptive behind his vote to each other juror, convincing them of how this case can be seen from a lens of reasonable doubt. He saw the story behind each one: the young business man who was disconnected, the gentleman who just wanted to go to the baseball game, the bigot older man that was basing his vote on the “kind” of boy the defendant was, the man deeply hurt by the avoidance of his son, the man that came to this country with hopes of a better life, etc.
The demographic composition of the jury played another major role in this film. The diversity of the mentioned backgrounds was evident to aiding the reasoning behind the vote in question. There seemed to be the jurors that were economically better off and removed from the situation (un-relatable to the young business man) and those, like the painter that was able to know that it will be difficult to see through a passing “L” train as well as hear a scream, to the other juror who knew how to use a switch blade because he had witnessed a few fights growing up. There was the “non-native” juror, who to me, represented a marginalized minority, like the boy, was also key to this process. Henry Fonda’s character, despite not being appointed, developed as the leader of the group as the film advanced, ensuring that everyone had the opportunity to vocalize the thought process, if any, behind their vote and defend their ideas among the group. He was sure to include each member, being respectful of all and making sure the decision of the group was reached by the collective in a just way.
The men seemed to find comfort in the surety of evidence and facts. They reviewed the evidence of the case over and over in order to solidify their confidence that he was guilty while ridding themselves of their own guilt that they were voting that way. Several jurors were hung up on the testimonies given by the old man and the female neighbor. These testimonies convinced them that the young man was guilty. It wasn’t until juror number 8 applied reason to these statements given in court, by using math and role play, that anyone even thought to question them.
The final jurors to vote not guilty claimed to be basing their decisions on “facts” but were not the most rational individuals in the room. This was especially true when it came to juror number three’s rationale. He was insisting over and over again that the young man was not guilty because of the testimony of the neighbors. However, it became clear as he lost his temper, that his opinion based on “fact” was actually based on his own personal relationship with his son.
Emotion played a positive and negative role in the discussion and ultimate decision-making in the juror room. Juror number eight tried to appeal to the emotion of the other jurors in the very beginning by insisting that they talk through the case before sending him to be hung. If it had not been for his convincing plea, it is possible that the twelve angry men wouldn’t have discussed the details of the case at all.
As previously mentioned, juror number three’s personal relationship with his son, and his emotions around their troubled situation, were critical to the film. Juror number three’s feelings negatively affected the discussion. He became more and more irate and less reasonable as the evening wore on. His insistence that the young man was guilty was entirely based on his emotion toward his own son to whom he no longer speaks.
The demographics of the jury had an impact on the way that the case, and more specifically the young man, was discussed. In several instances the jurors referred to the dangerous neighborhood where the young man lived. They called it the slums, referred to him a thug and even as trash. They seemed to believe that this was an indication that he was guilty. If there had been a juror from a similar neighborhood or background perhaps they wouldn’t have been so quick to use that as evidence that he was guilty.
Luckily there was a gentleman in the room that had experience with the flip/pocket knife, because one of the jurors was trying to convince others (and probably himself) how it is possible for a shorter person to stab a taller person downwards. Any logical person can conclude that this is improbable, but if he hadn’t been there to show them how a pocket knife flips upwards, these men were willing to throw their own logic out the window and use contradictory evidence to find him guilty.
Good thing there were enough gentlemen in the room to shed some light on the defendants way of life. It made the plea more convincing to the other jurors and further dispel the excess emotions. It also serves a representation of proper representation when it comes to a jury.
Hey Lucy!
It’s funny how the 11 jurors at first presented their “guilty” votes as fact-based decisions and juror #8 abstained because of reasonable doubt in guilt and evidence, but also perhaps based on empathy. Interesting that as the film progressed this was reversed for each juror with #8 sorting through facts and as you said applying reason “by using math and role play”. As the facts were dissected even further and made more clear, many who relied on them initially as support for their vote of “guilty” rejected them even more, like juror #3 and #10.
Hello Lucy
It is true that one person can be the change as we see in this film. Juror number 8 was the key of the film, he was the one that made the others think about the facts not just judge someone because of where they come from instead to take a closer look at how things really happened.
Many of us have seen this film before or have read excerpts of the play or read the play in its entirety at some point in life. I have not watched this film in many years and I understood way more this time watching it. I hope to answer a few of the questions in this prompt by dissecting two scenes.
Scene 1- Henry Fonda requested to see the diagram of the apartment where the old man and defendant lived. Once received, Henry Fonda, did an reenactment of what the old man testified he had heard, seen, and done the night of the murder. The old man says he heard yelling, a second later, heard a body hit the ground, then proceeded to get up and ran to the door just in time to see the defendant run out of the building. The prosecution said this took 15 seconds. Henry Fonda does the reenactment facing opposition from a few other jurors but debunks the old mans testimony by showing that an old man with a bum leg could not possibly make that trip in 15 seconds but more like 41 seconds.
Henry Fonda’s reenactment helped move a few other jurors to believe that there was reasonable doubt. By taking a look at the old mans testimony, Henry Fonda’s reenactment of the evidence provided in trial tainted the credibility of the old man. Credibility is important. The character of anyone taking the stand is always in question. Not only is the old mans testimony impossible, another juror, who is also an older man, questions his credibility and explains that he may have made his testimony and exaggerated the details of the night of the murder as a way to be noticed.
Scene 2- Juror 5 demonstrates how to use a switch blade. The prosecution says the defendant stabbed down into his fathers chest with the blade. Juror 5 says that this is basically impossible. He grew up in the slums and seen many blade fights. Once again we see another reenactment of evidence that was provided in the trial resulting in more jurors believing there is reasonable doubt. I find his character very interesting. Juror 5 is from the slums and speaks up against another juror making stereotypical results of people who come from the slums. Juror 5 is accused of feeling sorry for the boy because they share the same childhood background. It is truly interesting to see how in the end his background which is looked down upon sheds light on slum life and how the defendant may indeed be innocent. His character that was looked down upon gave him credibility in the end.
Finally- Voting regulations were inconsistent within the film. At first they began to vote anonymously but in the end the Foreman moved every Juror to verbally vote guilty or not guilty or to raise their hands. The latter style allowed for more open dialogue and what could be argued as easier deliberation. There were so many emotions expressed by these jurors including anger, agitation , confusion, regret, remorse, and sadness. Everyone was surely angry. Angry at the system, angry at their past, angry at their present state, angry at the heat, and angry at one another.
I also thought these scenes were particularly powerful. It was so smart of jurors 8 and 5 to physically act out the testimony. It’s easy to speak hypothetically and theoretically, but a physical reenactment is so much more powerful and ultimately moved the deliberation forward in a way that just talking or arguing about the evidence never could.
I think your point about anger is really important. Obviously anger is a key component of the movie since it’s called 12 Angry Men, but in the end the men’s anger turned out to be more at themselves and the system than anything else. I felt like the final juror to vote not guilty was the angriest throughout the film, but his anger turned out to be more despair over his son and their situation that manifested itself as anger at other things. Without the deliberation process, that anger could have sent a potentially innocent person to death.
It is interesting that you mention their voting method. It seemed that the jurors were experimenting with various forms of voting because, initially, they believed the way they were voting was influencing the outcome. It is very similar to controversial elections; where instead of examining why a particular candidate won votes, the opposition instead focuses on whether our voting system is inefficient or corrupt. It really goes back to the jurors’ biases and their belief that the defendant couldn’t possibly be not guilty even though that notion had no legal standing.
I think that it was really insightful to compare the play to the movie. When watching the movie, I had trouble breaking it into ‘scenes’ and your comments really helped me better define the plot and structure. As the play breaks it down, reasonable double begins to permeate the pool of jurors at the end of the first scene when the testimony of the elderly man is challenged.
Anger is another interesting theme, but I noticed that as the jurors explored the case, some of their anger dissipated. Those still convince of the defendant’s guilt continued to remain irate.
I agree with you to a point. I honestly don’t believe they were all just angry men: most of them were very irrational but Henry Fonda’s character seemed to be very calm and collective throughout the entire film. He was more of a rational thinker than anything. He questioned the “facts” that other jurors believed were solid evidence the young man killed his father. He showed the loop holes in the stories by the so called credible witnesses the prosecutors used to aid in trying to prove the young man’s guilt. Mr fonda even pursuaded the other jurors to reexamine the evidence closer that later led to an aqittal.
The movie “12 Angry Men” draws a clever focus on a jury’s deliberations in a murder trial of an 18-year-old boy who is accused in stabbing his father to death. It sets a tone for a contentious sentiment from these 12 jurors, yet on the contrary not all 12 of them are angry. In the beginning, the leader of the jury seems casually leading into the conversation of voting without officially setting any rules or procedures. After the first open vote was taken, 11 of the jurors instantaneously vote guilty while one juror, Mr. Davis, casts a not guilty vote. That’s when things start to get interesting. Arguments and chaos fill the room and there’s no consensus in who should speak first. Generally, rules to govern who and when to speak are despised and perhaps unnecessary. However, without such rules, decision making runs counter-productive among these 12 men from various backgrounds who carry different burdens, selfish reasons, and biases with them that counter seeking justice of this case.
Besides rules for speaking and voting, evidence and reasoning are at play among the deliberations. The knife, for example, is a key evidence against the boy because here’s a proof of a distinctive weapon that he owned, lost, which then ended up in his father’s chest. Most of the jurors rely on the fact that the boy said he didn’t remember the movie’s name he watched that night at the theater during when his father was murdered. Some say his upbringing in an abusive environment is the motive for him to kill his father. Most importantly, in light of the testimonies by the old men downstairs with a limp and the lady in the neighborhood, the jurors believe it is only rational that the boy is the murderer. However, these jurors are the same people who change their mind when Mr. Davis takes the lead to question these “facts” they base. He first risks breaking the law to show the jury how common the knife actually is. He reminds everyone that the boy hasn’t opened his mouth the whole trial and that they should try putting themselves in his shoes. The cross examination is not thorough either. Throughout the exchange, they also realize that there is likely insufficient time for the old man to have walked to the door and seen the boy and that the lady’s eyesight is questionable.
Ultimately, I believe the appeal to examine facts and possibility is present in the jury when the leadership becomes clear. Mr. Davis is that leadership in this jury. He is someone who is not influenced by his own emotional baggage like the stubborn and easily irritated man who remains the last to vote not guilty. He is not someone who would rather jeopardize the boy’s innocence in exchange for a baseball game. He shows genuine concern to discuss the possibilities and is unwilling to give in to the majority. That’s the leadership and responsibility of a jury we should model after.
You make a really great point about leadership. Without Mr. Davis as a leader, the defendant would have almost certainly been convicted. I thought it was interesting that Davis wasn’t the “official” leader – the foreman held the officially most authoritative position, but he wasn’t an effective leader and so Davis emerged as the person who pushed the others’ thinking and led them to a decision.
As you point out, Davis was also the calmest and most rational of the group, which I think makes another important point about leadership. A leader isn’t necessarily the loudest or the most senior or even the most respected-a lot of the jurors thought Davis was crazy up until the end. But he was rational and smart and used logic and examples to prove his points that the other jurors, even when they didn’t want to agree with him, couldn’t deny. It takes a lot of skill moral conviction to pull that off, and he did it really well.
Hi,
I agree with your comments on lack of rules and the effects on decision making. It is scary that the outcome of the jury deliberations, and the boys life depended ultimately on the cool head and rationality of one person, instead of a rational process.
12 Angry Men paints a picture of the American trial-by-jury justice system and the challenges the jury faces in deliberating a criminal case objectively without prejudice. In the beginning, the judge reminded the jury of not only what was at stake but also of the requirement to agree on a unanimous vote to return a verdict.
In the first voting process, Juror 8, the only one to vote not guilty, took the courage to depart from the popular vote urging the rest to give the defendant, regardless of background, his due process. He expressed his ambivalence in his vote but felt that there was not enough evidence to convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite being faced with vitriol and resistance, he remained composed and level-headed in wanting to talk it out curious to explore where it will take them. His calm temperament, persuasive efforts, and steadfast leadership, unconsciously taking over leadership from the foreman who was weak and incapable of managing the group, were influential in convincing his fellow jurors to reassess their certainty of the defendant’s guilt by questioning evidence through reasoning.
The voting procedures consisted of voting by hand and secret ballot, the latter suggested by Juror 8. In his view, a secret ballot will allow jurors to vote honestly without being swayed by pressure or influence. Though the first juror to change his vote didn’t hold a firm stance to support his altered vote, he agreed that the defendant deserved a chance to a fair trial. The voting by hand (after discussions) seem to reveal that jurors were more inclined to side with the popular vote to avoid confrontations. Gradually, there was a steady progress in the direction of the votes once they delve into the evidence more closely.
The last two jurors to submit to reasoning proved that people who claimed to be basing their decision on evidence presented as “facts” are not always the most committed to the rational process. In Juror 10’s case, his believe that people from the slums pose a threat to society which was made clear when he said “they” were out to destroy them. In a dramatic and emotional scene, Juror 3 expressed frustration of his troubled relationship with his son, revealing his prejudice toward young men being difficult and unappreciative, thus deserving punishment. Their prejudices blinded their ability to be rational.
The demographic composition of the jury certainly affected the way deliberation went and the outcome. The jury represented a diversity in racial and cultural backgrounds, beliefs, socio economical status, personalities and even temperaments and exposed the challenges it faces, much like the American life. Because of diversity, the jury was able to consider different viewpoints forcing them to eventually face their own prejudices. Some conveyed sympathy for the defendant’s hard life (e.g. Juror 5 who comes from a poor background and able to relate) while others expressed fear and anger and were quick to stereotype him as characteristically untrustworthy and capable of such crimes (e.g. Juror 10 who seem to feel privileged and possess a deep-seated bitterness against this marginalized community). Through discussions and reenactments, their skepticism of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses slowly escalated leading them to consider the reasonable doubts. What I found very interesting was once it dawned on them that their initial perceptions were wrong, their temperament softened and their treatment of each other changed. In the end, I think sympathy helped in weighing different viewpoints and allowed reasoning to prevail in the decision making process resulting to overturn the vote to 12-0 in favor of not guilty.
I agree with you that the men’s prejudiced played a major role in their initially decision. One good thing about our judicial system where a jury decides the verdict, and it has to be an unanimous vote. It really only takes one juror like this case to make everyone one else to really take a step back and set aside their personal opinions and examine the facts. I’m sure there are many times where innocent people are convicted and on the flip side guilty people who are set free, but it is important for jurors to really examine the case in an unbiased manner.
I can’t agree with you more. We can’t deny that there have been numerous cases where, as you pointed out, innocent people were convicted or guilty people were set free. In this case, had it not been for Juror 8’s insistence on the defendant’s right to justice and due process, the rest of the jury would have been ready to pack their bags and convict a probable innocent young man. On the other hand, if Juror 8 were weak, ineffective and lacked the leadership skills he demonstrated in influencing the rest of the juror to consider “coincidence” in the first deliberations, he would not have prevailed.
I think it is very important that you defined the prejudice of the last two jurors who changed their votes. One man is just a bigot who has decided that the defendant is guilty because of the defendant’s background. His hatred is very broad based, and is somewhat stereotypical of what we expect from a bigot. The last juror has a very focused and personal hatred for the defendant because of his transferred disappointment in his son. That father-son relationship is complex, given the little we know of it. Was the juror angry with his son because his son hit him, ran away from home or just rebelled? Does the juror want the accused dead because his son—the same age as the defendant—might be able to kill him also? It’s very heady emotion and painful for him to confront or release, which we finally see at the end of the film.
One of the first things I noticed in “12 Angry Men” was how important the willingness to participate is to the process of deliberation. From the beginning, the lack of ventilation in a room during hot weather created a hostile environment. Most of the jurors were initially very eager to vote quickly and move on with their lives. Additionally, one of the interesting things about the first vote was the jurors’ desire to side with the perceived majority regardless of their own personal reservations with the case. As Henry Fonda’s character exposes the weaknesses of the evidence and witness testimonies, the tension mounts as many of the jurors do not like being challenged.
As a result, one of the key challenges to reaching consensus is overcoming prejudice and personal experience. Initially, all of the jurors, except for Fonda, only consider a not-guilty verdict when Fonda specifically relates his doubts to their own personal experiences. We see this most clearly with E.G. Marshall’s character, a man who considers himself very analytical; he only changes his vote when Sweeney exposes the female witness’s unreliable testimony due to her use of eye glasses, something with which Marshall’s character is very familiar.
Initially, the loudest and most aggressive jurors control much of the conversation. But it is Fonda’s calm, direct and persistent approach that eventually wins out, culminating in a silent protest against one of the more bigoted jurors, portrayed by Ed Begley. But ultimately, what wins out among the jurors is the contagiousness of the reasonable doubt. But a reasonable doubt cannot be reached without asking questions and verifying everything that one is told. Many of the jurors took the “facts” of the case for granted. Witness testimony was initially viewed as reliable. And cultural perceptions of poor or ethnically diverse individuals only added to the unfairness in which the case was presented.
Regardless of the emotions in the room, however, the jurors did conduct themselves in a relatively organized way. Everyone presented arguments, a vote would be held and counted and deliberations would continue until a consensus was gradually reached. However, I’m not confident that a leader such as Fonda’s character would always emerge in those situations. In fact, I think it is safe to say that there have been many times when juries voted in controversial ways simply because of a misunderstanding of the idea of a reasonable doubt; which is also suggested in the film. Perhaps the largest mystery in the film comes from Fonda’s character’s motivations. What would drive such an individual in that situation during that period of time to so vehemently stand up for the defendant? One can only assume that this is the film’s belief in justice.
I appreciate how you make a point that the literal heat in the room adds to the Juror’s furor. Sometimes, when in the moment, or watching a movie, it is easy to forget how the physical environment of the space impacts dialogue. In this case, the heat intensifies the anger. It is only when Davis speaks in a calm, cool tone that he can begin the process of dialogue with others.
Despite the heat, I am also impressed with the organized way in which the jurors collect themselves with. Perhaps the politeness was a product of the decade?
You make such a strong argument in your first sentence about “willingness to participate.” This is key for deliberation and is something that I have witnessed in informal meetings as well as more formal Board of Director level discussions. I think you articulate it really well. I also appreciate your comment regarding the heat. It clearly was affecting the jurors moods and conversations. I believe it was part of the reason that the juror with the baseball tickets (his number is escaping me) changed his vote. It is important to remember this for future situations where important discussions and decisions need to be made.
Actually seeing the beads of sweat running down the foreheads and sweat pools under armpits reminded the audience of how hard it must have been to make a decision when your physical limits are being tested and your stereotypes and biases are being tested as well. The heat could be a metaphor for a lot of things. As anger rose within the deliberation room so did the temperature. Pauses in thought worked hand in hand with jurors running to the window for an escape from the heat.
I delighted in your analysis of how Henry Fonda’s character, with his calm, direct and persistent approach, gained control of the larger group and his presentation of reasonable doubt is contagious to the other jurors. The only way he was able to do so among such an adamant group was with asking questions, verifying the information and then presenting each point in cross examination with the real facts versus personal emotions/opinions.
Now that you mention it (Fonda vs. Juror No. 1 as leaders) there was something about the concept of Leadership I didn’t notice when watching. Juror No. 1 did assume the role as leader simply because he sat at the head of the table. As a high school coach he probably has experience getting rowdy teens to settle down, which would come in handy as a leader. But given that all the jurors are adults there’s probably less of a herding cats-type of role needed. If all jurors had decided the defendant was guilty, there wouldn’t be much of a need for a leader (and the movie would be short and pointless). Fonda emerged as a leader by his need to convince the others that they couldn’t let the defendant be executed or as a hung jury simply kick the decision to someone else. So Juror No. 1 was de jure leader, Fonda de facto leader. When I think of my meetings at the hospital where I work, the group leader’s role is simply to keep an eye on the clock and make sure everyone gets a chance to speak. A rowdy radiologist could (I suppose) convince everyone they are wrong and their proposed clinical trials are dumb. This rowdy radiologist wouldn’t knock the leader of the meeting down. What I’m trying to say is that the leader is barely necessary. I was trying to read a Cold War context into the movie and it’s pretty easy to find: America is a democracy with its jury system and people should be grateful to be a part of it, unlike in Iron Curtain countries where fate is decided by bureaucrats and expediency. As such we don’t need leaders, as such, just facilitators.
The role of the appointed leader of the group was to maintain order and set the ground rules for deliberation, however because the appointed foreman was not a strong leader, he was unsuccessful throughout most of the film to control the group. Throughout the film different men assumed the leadership role in an attempt to either convince the others to vote a certain way, however I believe that the juror who initially voted not guilty was the true leader of the group. He was able to calming communicate to the group his points and led them all to further look at the “facts” and examine the case more thoroughly.
The men sat in sequential order based on their jury number. They tried to maintain order by going around the room to allow each person an opportunity to speak and convince the one juror who initially voted “not guilty” to change his vote, but that quickly got out of control and people started to talk out of turn and talked over each other. Voting was conducted in several ways, from showing of hands, to written anonymous ballots, to verbal voting.
Emotions played a big role in the discussion, both in a positive and negative way. Some of the jurors were angry because they did not want be stuck in the hot room and just wanted to get back to their lives, instead of discussing what they thought was an open and shut case. However, once they began dissecting the “facts” and “evidence” of the case they quickly realized that there was reasonable doubt. They then set aside their own personal emotions and prejudice and was able to deliver a not guilty verdict. Not only did emotions play a role in the discussions and initial decisions, but the men’s background and demographic composition also played a role. Although all the jurors were white men, not all of them came from the same background. There was a man who “came from the slums” and another who had a thick accent. Often times our demographic background, ethnicity, and personal experiences play a role in how we interact or make judgments of others.
I really enjoyed watching this film, and it also is good timing because I am summoned to jury duty at the end of this month. If I am selected for a trial, I will have to remind myself to really examine all the facts and evidence and not let me personal opinions affect my decision.
I agree with your view that the foreman was a weak leader. His initial ground rules seemed like they would have really helped the process be less emotional and divisive, but he didn’t have the ability to force the men to stick to them. I wonder how different the outcome would have been had they stuck to some of their initial rules on who can talk or when they would end deliberations. The more chaotic, drawn-out, and unstructured the process became, they longer the men had to think, re-think, and re-re-think their positions.
Sorry to hear about jury duty, hopefully it’s not for Grand Jury!
I see a few classmates above who say the leader, Juror No. 1, was weak. I didn’t see him as weak so much as attempting to accommodate people wanting to get the thing over with as quickly as possible but also take their task seriously. He didn’t erupt at anyone or display overt annoyance like many other jurors did. A weak leader might have tried to exert his personality on others, such as use of intimidating body language or cutting people off. Instead he showed ability to both allow people to speak their minds while also being able to reconvene the jurors when things got too flustered.
I also wish you luck in your role as a potential juror! I know a few tricks on how to avoid being impaneled, but it seems particularly inappropriate to share them here.
Everyone, at least in the beginning, was polite and used terms like ‘gentleman’. The power structure was fairly egalitarian as anyone was able to propose a vote, yet there was authority given to the jury foreman. He was the one who counted the written votes and could request pieces of evidence from the bailiff.
Emotions played various roles in the juror’s discussions. The blond man who is the last to concede to the defendant’s not guilty verdict appears angry during most of the movie. It is revealed that he has an estranged son, of whom he carries a picture of in his wallet. Throughout the movie he carries a sense of denial about his grief about his son and a hyperbolic sense of anger at the defendant. When he finally accepts a not guilty verdict for the defendant, it seems that he is finally able to move from anger into grief and sadness about the relationship with his son.
The demographic composition of the jury directly impacted their ability to reach a not guilty verdict. Each piece of evidence that was presented by the jury was eventually dismissed because personal knowledge from each of the jurors. The juror who grew up in the slums knew how a switchblade would create a wound. Davis, as an architect was able to guide the group in determining that the elderly man’s testimony was false because he would not be able reach the front door in time based on apartment design. The elderly juror was able to share insight on why this witness might believe falsely that he saw the defendant. By specific jurors taking leadership roles in their areas of expertise, they were able to dismantle false testimony and arrive at a just verdict.
Hi Francesca! Nice to know there’s another Binghamton alum in the class. Your last sentence makes me contemplate a bit on leadership. Initially, I thought Mr. Davis is the only leader in the jury because his actions and words have challenged other jurors to reexamine the facts and influenced their decisions. But in hindsight, I do agree in some degree that a few jurors have taken the leadership roles to speak up such as the jury foreman and Mr. Sweeney, an observant retiree in the room who is the second to vote “not guilty”. The stock broker Mr. Marshall, on the other hand, is the second last to vote “not guilty”. But I believe his analytical and rational mindset may have helped other jurors to think twice about their votes. Perhaps we will unravel the definition of leadership in deliberation a little more in this class.
Hi Francesca, your recount of the contributions of the different jurors highlighted something I didn’t pay that much attention to. The process of how and when each of those jurors got to utilize their expertise, however, was somewhat tortuous.
The film “12 Angry Men” tells the story of 12 jurors who deliberate the culpability of a boy who is accused of killing his father. The voting procedures began with a preliminary vote, which all jurors voted “guilty” except juror 8. Throughout the film, the process changes, from a secret ballot to each voter changing their stance based on evidence, and ending with a unanimous vote of “not guilty.”
Reasoning and Evidence played a key role in the decision process. As the sole juror that voted “ not guilty” in the preliminary vote, Fonda put into the question the case’s evidence based on the idea that there was reasonable doubt that the boy committed the murder. Eyewitnesses were used as part of the evidence but Fonda questioned the credibility of the jurors. As the evidence was presented, different jurors used Fonda’s reasoning to question the evidence at hand. I was impressed by Fonda for being able to use reasoning to make the other jurors think outside of their preconceive notions.
Throughout the process emotions were running high it played both a positive and negative role. A negative role emotion played was when as each juror changed his mind on the verdict insults and arguments occurred between jurors with opposite views. Emotions influenced the voting process, specifically with Juror 3. Towards the end, when the majority has come to the conclusion that the boy is not guilty, Juror 3 continues to maintain that the boy is guilty. He goes on to make a series of arguments as to why the boy is guilty, but ultimately breaks down when he talks about the estranged relationship with his son and changes his vote.
Although the jurors were solely men there was a difference in age and socio-economic background. The jurors who grew up similar to the boy were able to empathize with him. On the other hand, it would be interesting to see if the way the case was discussed would be different if it were a mixed gender jury.
At first the original leader, juror 1 was able to take control of the voting procedures but as the evidence crumbled, Juror 1 became flustered and lost control of the room. By staying calm and speaking in a respectful tone, Henry Fonda rose as the leader of the group.
The point you make about how the discussion and maybe ultimately the outcome would be different were the jury more diverse is something I was considering too. It also made me wonder how unrealistic the actual selection of jurors was—not just because it’s all men, but because many of them have pretty clear inherent biases. In real life, those jurors would most likely have been weeded out much earlier, and the discussion may have been way more tedious with less explosive emotions. That probably wouldn’t have made for a very exciting movie though…
I really admired juror 8’s courage and conviction to vote not-guilty after 7 men had already voted guilty, and his insistence on talking it through before making a hasty decision about the fate of a young man’s life. The general idea to consider other possibilities and not jump to conclusions is really important throughout our lives, and I think that we often rush through life making decisions based on superficial evidence. Someone asked me today if I use my head or heart when making decisions and it seemed to me that many of the jurors in 12 Angry Men were using their heads but only the information they were presented with in the courtroom. By the end of the deliberation all of the jurors seemed to use their head, heart, case evidence and life experience to reach the verdict.
1) In the film, the jurors were placed in a confined room to deliberate the verdict of the case. The film placed little emphasis on the names of the jurors. Instead, each juror was given a number. The juror leading the deliberation asked the group to sit down around the table in order of their number starting from juror #1. Each juror was then expected to explain their decision. This process of speaking provided an order but may have affected the responses of the other jurors. For example, one juror was asking to be passed and hesitant to share his decision. For the film’s plot, it was crucial that guilty votes were presented first and create a dilemma for the main character to go against the majority but it may have a counter-productive effect as it can diminish the opportunity for participants to be part of the discussion. Clearly, it took great deal of courage of one juror to go against everyone’s guilty verdict.
2) The film showed two voting procedures: hand vote and secret ballot. Hand vote was crucial as it reminded each juror their civic duty. This was important for each juror to understand and make sure decisions are not made without thought. The first over arching rule was shared during the courtroom scene. It established that the jury verdict was an important and difficult decision as it involves the life or death of a man. Secret ballot was also crucial to the film as it cast light to those jurors who are not willing to speak up and stand up. Secret ballot revealed that another juror was not in favor of guilty verdict. The film also provided another rule: if jurors are undecided by 7pm, they will notify the judge and another set of jurors will have to decide the verdict. This rule provided time constraints and urgency to the situation.
3) It was interesting that the jurorss used “facts” when they were perhaps “alternative facts”. Facts were discussed by the jurors as irrefutable evidence presented in the court. But as the film’s plot developed, the facts are just pieces of information but not the full story. Some of the jurors with guilty verdict are really basing their decision from on their own biases and emotion without rational thought.
4) Emotion and personal biases are intertwined to each juror’s decision, so it was important to point those out during the film. Emotion can act as positive as it can be a unifying theme for the group. It can also be negative and be destructive. One juror who sees himself very excitable is causing chaos and confusion. Negative emotion is a potential barrier to open communication.
5) Diverse composition is crucial as it provides a diverse point of view (from the painter who works near the train, from someone who knows how to use a switchblade). Diverse groups allow voices from different perspectives and can be very enlightening. In the film, the jurors lacked diversity. There are no women and no minority. It may have something to do with the film industry culture. The film did make sure the jurors came from different socio-economic background, age-group and professions. But diversity can also pose difficult challenges. If the views are too different, it can cause poor engagement and lead to stagnation of ideas.
6) Leadership was crucial in the film. Leaders are able to provide order, rules, direction, and moral courage. Leaders are able to control the situation, make sure everyone has equal amount of participation, direct so people are not distracted by other interests, and provide courage to step forward and engage in discussion.
Viewing 12 Angry Men through the lens of the communication and decision-making processes, rather than the filmmaking and story, was a much different experience and even led me to come to a different conclusion regarding the film’s ending.
To begin, the decision-making processes the men use throughout the deliberation vary, but the most important factor is that almost none are fully committed to. For instance, the men make a pact they will give it one hour and then report their decision, a timeframe they end up extending, and then ultimately dropping. This decision has an effect on the outcome, as reporting a hung jury would have most likely resulted in the judge ordering them to deliberate further and implicitly pressuring for a guilty consensus. This lack of ground rules and tenuous commitment to self-imposed restrictions also allows the emotions in the room to spiral out of control.
Emotions play an outsized role on both sides of the debate. The guilty side’s emotions are obvious, and the film carefully presents the men’s racism, biases, and family lives as clouding factors on their judgement. I think it’s worth noting that emotion plays a huge role in the “not guilty” contingent as well. What begins as almost pure contrarianism by Henry Fonda’s character sometimes turns into direct appeals to jurors’ humanity instead of unbiased reason, and devolves into an almost runaway peer pressure to join the slowly growing “not guilty” group. Fonda also seems to let emotion completely drive him—his stubbornness to accept a single counter-fact seems to be grounded in a sense of pride.
Lastly, examining the role of reasoning and facts is what ultimately made me to question the outcome of the deliberations. While there are clearly potential holes in each “fact”, this seems to be a case of subscribing to the set of “facts” that you want to believe. The film doesn’t allow either side to be entirely right or wrong; the “not guilty” group never actually disproves any of the facts, they just introduce some level of doubt.
While the “not guilty” side is presented as the just side, viewing the film through this lens has led me to seriously question whether the correct and reasonable decision was actually made. In fact, I think it is arguable that despite the rationality behind Fonda’s explanations, looking at the evidence in total shows that the “not guilty” side is subscribing to something closer to conspiracy theory than actual fact-based reasoning. To explain, all the evidence on its face points to the boy being guilty. For him to have been not guilty, a significant coincidence would have had to occur to counter every single piece of evidence. That means that something like 10 coincidences (e.g. the woman not wearing her glasses, someone having the exact same switchblade, the boy yelling “I’ll kill you”, etc.) would need to occur at the exact same time for him to be not guilty, which is virtually impossible. With this in mind, the guilty voters start seeming like the more rational parties.
Hey Kyle! I appreciate how you mention looking at this film through a communication/deliberation lens supports in understanding the importance of processes and being committed to them. The men not committing to the their established plan or agenda before they began discussing the matter, contributed to the contagion effect of the challenges in this particular deliberation. From the beginning, these rules were disfavored, demonstrating the lack of control from the leader. The lack of commitment from him and most of the rest of the jurors led to prolonging the decision, infused with all the tenacious emotions.
I also thought their deliberation process was an important factor. It seems as each man commits further to their opinions, they become more emotional, and in turn the structure of their deliberation process falls apart. While it may be important to adhere to a consistent deliberation process for the sake of fairness, juror 8’s commitment to his opinion sparked emotional responses in some of the less interested jurors.
I agree with you the 8th juror was the star juror who evoke and cause all other jurors to put on their thinking cups and to see reasoning and leave emotions out of the murder case. Treat the case as per the evidence presented with clear and precise scrutiny of the evidence.this led to the eventual change of decisions by other jurors
Your comments on the “not guilty” side being presented as the just one and how it is almost impossible for far too many coincidences to occur led me to question if justice really prevailed. But I suppose the film’s intent to focus the deliberation process to reach the verdict of not guilty on the basis of the existence of reasonable doubts was to present this approach as a more realistic path to achieving justice.
12 Angry Men highlights the importance of deliberation in civil life. The jurors in the film are unnamed and assigned numbers. The foreman directs the jury to deliberate the facts of the case in order of their assigned number. While the formal rules of deliberation allowed the jurors to share their respective opinions of the case, it may have ultimately been unproductive as it pressures jurors to speak at a time they might not have a fully formed opinion. The role of evidence plays an interesting part in the film. Although the prosecution shares evidence of the crime, they do so in a way that reflects the guilt of the accused young man. The jury is left to disentangle the facts presented to them, however they perform their own analysis. The evidence seems to present itself to the jurors in a succession of realizations. As far as convincing evidence goes, the switchblade and the glasses seem to be last minute epiphanies by the jurors, and not facts presented to them. The jurors who based their decision on “facts,” seem to be deliberating from an desire to investigate the crime further than the prosecutors had. Had the jury reached a conclusion based upon the facts presented to them, they would have almost certainly convicted the young man.
The film did a great job of displaying how emotion penetrates our reasoning. Based off the facts, juror 8 would have voted to convict. It was his emotional reaction to the rest of the jurors’ assumed guilt of the young man that spurred the rest of their investigation and deliberation into the case. Emotion is reflected in both positive and negative ways. Just as the emotion of juror 8 saved the young man from condemnation, the emotions of a few of the jurors nearly eroded the jury and deliberation process. If one is chosen to sit on a jury, it is their duty to conduct a fair and full discussion of the facts presented to them. One juror was willing to skip crucial discussions and vote to condemn the young man because he had Yankee’s tickets.
There were several intriguing dynamics at play throughout 12 Angry Men. One subject was the evolution of one lightly structured democratic style meeting. To start, each juror was given a vote towards a murder case involving a father and son, which was assumed to be “open and shut” according to most jurors before the vote. In the initial stages of meeting, proceedings were structured with a designated foreman signaling cues to sit, speak and ultimately vote by show of hands. Juror #8, which Henry Fonda played, was the lone not-guilty vote from the start. He challenged the other jurors to consider some of the doubts which prompted his vote. When he began to agitate the solidarity of the “guilty” voters, it was easy to see that there was not enough structure in the proceedings and the appointed leader could not adequately handle some of the overbearing personalities in the room.
When the opinions began to sway, the voting proceedings also shifted. First the foreman conducted employed a “yay or nay” style tally. When tensions ran high, Juror #8 and not the foreman, prescribed a paper vote to mitigate the intimidation factor. Ultimately, they didn’t even take a final vote to close the proceedings. This was typical of the day because the foreman couldn’t hold the structure together. However the style of voting shifted, there was an overarching rule of one man equals one vote. Everyone counted and the decision had to be unanimous to reach either a guilty or not guilty decision.
Right off the bat, the lack of air conditioning foreshadows the emotional rollercoaster that would soon come. The state of individuals within the room began as amiable and eventually morphed into a tense scene, where each character had an emotional outburst at one point or another. One striking observation was the calibrated method Henry Fonda and the “not guilty” voters ultimately appealed to each juror using emotional arguments. If the juror was emotion heavy, they tried to win them with more logic. In the case of the stereotypically aloof banker, they won him over through emotion by causing him to feel flustered under the pressure of remembering movie details from a past (but not so past) evening.
The film also spoke to how appointed leaders are not necessarily the leaders of a room or organization for one reason or another. Henry Fonda displayed leadership by proxy initially, but eventually came to represent compassion and logic, empowering others to stand up for their own thought process. In his own right, the burly guy, with the estranged son, was also a leader. He adversely lead with fear tactics and intimidation.
I remember watching this movie for class back in middle school, but it definitely wasn’t so engaging then. I thoroughly enjoyed all the plots and subplots this time around.
This is clearly a middle school type of play. In my case we acted it out in class. This is heavy stuff for a 13-year old. Even after college, I did not “get” the film but I must admit that having been on a few juries really helped give some perspective. I also thought it was interesting that they tried to have a lot of different types of men portrayed, although I am sure that censorship and a measure of Hollywood racism did not allow for the full range of New York type diversity we would see today. Good film with great acting.
From the very beginning of the deliberation process it seemed that the jury foreman portrayed himself as more of a facilitator rather than a leader among the group and the other jurors took notice of this and consequently did not treat him as a leader. In the beginning of the film, it seemed that he tried to develop a systematic way of voting and communication according of jury number but as the group become more comfortable with each other, it became an ad hoc system where jurors spoke up as a response or reaction to what another juror said. The jury foreman was inconsistent with the way votes were counted, sometimes asking fellow jurors to speak up, then other times counting votes anonymously, if the beginning vote was anonymous maybe it would not have been 11 to on in favor of guilt. Nevertheless, during the initial vote it seemed that most of the jurors completely trusted in and believed that what the witnesses claimed to see were facts. I think they were naive in solely relying on two witnesses’ testimonies and considering it an open and shut case.
If it weren’t for one jury member who thought critically beyond the two witness testimonials and insisted on wanting to discuss the case further, the 11 other jurors would still consider the witness stories facts. When they realized that witness testimony is not necessarily factual and that they had to use their own reasoning and knowledge about the environment, did they recognize that there could be holes in the witnesses’ versions of the story, and it occurred to them that there was some reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt.
I actually think that this jury deliberation was mostly tame with a few exceptions that seemed to stem from frustration. Nowadays it takes juries weeks to deliberate cases and we hear about how much conflict there is in the jury room, this is probably a result of more evidence from both the plaintiff and defendants, more differences in the composition of society and general knowledge of crime that we get from TV and the internet. So, I think that if the jury in “12 Angry Men” were more diverse back in 1957, the deliberation process would have been much more intense and complicated. Although there were generational and cultural differences among the jurors in “12 Angry Men,” they still had more in common with each other than if, for example, there were men of different races in the room.
12 Angry Men is a film about a jury who decides on the fate of a young boy on trial for 1st degree murder. With a 11-1 decision, the atmosphere gradually changes as one one juror lengthens the process on the grounds of reasonable doubt.
The lone juror, unconvinced by evidence and testimonials presented, manages to inspire other jurors while validating the necessity of reasonable doubt. Each juror was seated in their original position from the stand and asked to explain the reasoning behind their decision. This simple process would impact the jurors in an unexpected way. The evidence received a more through review from the jurors. As each piece was begrudgingly reviewed, one by one the jurors began to have a change of heart. The lone juror was effective in not only defending his view of moral and integrity but unintentionally convince the others. With a “seed” planted, along with sound logic it became a matter of time before all of the jurors changed their decision.
Majority of the jury had already regarded the defendant as guilty and of a lower status. Based on what they heard, their current lifestyles and preconceived notions of the juror shaped their decision. Their bias clouded their judgement from the oldest of jurors to youngest. Had it continued in that fashion the defendant would not have been fairly prosecuted and the justice system would have failed him. When presented with better logic and accurate arguments, the jurors had to rethink their choice and themselves.
In addition fickle aspects like emotions were purged from further intimidating and influencing the jurors. The film was not a case to prove the defendants innocence but a case to review morality and personal intent. The lone juror’s unfazed will and ownership of an unpopular stance proved vital for the case and his character’s value. By standing alone for justice, he proved more of a man than the others who stood together on fallible ground.
The jurors in 12 Angry Men expressed their verdicts by verbal yes/no votes, secret ballot, and raised hands. The rules for who spoke roughly went in order of juror, seated one through twelve around a table. But frequently men interrupted each other. When the interruptions got too heated other men would intervene, but mostly the men were allowed to speak to defend their decisions and talk through their thought processes. Juror number one assumed the role of facilitator, not out of a talent for facilitation but because he happened to be randomly assigned the number one. The rules seemed productive simply because there was so much chaos when the rules were broken (when one man attacked another for his opinions, etc).
The room roughly divided into those who wanted to get the deliberation over with quickly; those who respected the process and its place in American culture; and those who brought (or projected) their outside issues into the process (i.e. the man who despised slum-dwellers and the man who had issues with his adult son). This latter group seemed to have the most trouble letting go of their convictions that the boy was guilty and that evidence pointed to his innocence. They also had the most trouble distinguishing their emotions from the facts. That is, the men who hung on to their emotions most strongly were also had the most difficulty admitting the facts were against them.
Demographically the men were from different classes and generally (but not as a rule) the professional and working class men were most ready to change their votes to innocent. The men who changed their votes last tended to be lower-middle class (the salesman, the angry dad, the man who hated slum-dwellers). But there are exceptions to this rule. Perhaps the implication was that the middle classes are more pliable? I didn’t think this was necessarily true.
Voting procedures in 12 Angry Men varied. Beginning with an open vote through a show of hands, brave juror #8 voted “not guilty”. After defending his stance and receiving a great deal of resistance from the other jurors, #8 proposed a closed-ballot vote with the promise of a unanimous “guilty” charge if no other juror voted “not guilty” with him. I noticed that throughout the film, a different voting procedure is used every time: The jurors went around the table to speak their votes, hands were raised for “not guilty” only, and towards the end the three jurors remaining in the “guilty” camp declared their votes informally one at a time after having a deeper realization. The overarching rules for decision making were consistently voting to gauge where the discussion would go next and holding jurors accountable for explaining their reasoning behind their vote. I believe that these rules and procedures positively affected the outcome. They required jurors to hold each other accountable while deliberating over the fate another human being’s life. As jury deliberations don’t have specified procedures, I thought that the way the jurors went about deliberation was fairly neat. Everyone was heard and there were steady votes to account for the feeling of the room.
I believe that emotion played a significant role in the discussion. There were displays of empathy that allowed for some jurors to refrain from hasty decisions. There were fits of anger and rage like juror #3’s at the end which resulted in a “not guilty” vote and a potential teachable moment for himself. The discriminatory juror #10 was driven by fear and anger. I felt like both evidence/facts and emotion played equal roles in each jurors decision to eventually vote “not guilty”.
Leadership played a large role in the deliberation. Juror #1 was rather uninspiring as foreman. To me, the clear leader was Juror #8. He took the initiative to stand for what was right in regards to his civic duty as a juror. He seemed to have a keen sense of moral awareness and was encouraging, thoughtful with the other jurors. He didn’t let up on the ethics of putting forth a fair and well-concluded deliberation. This “leadership-like” behavior resulted in actual discourse on the trial, resulting in active and lively participation in a fundamental aspect of democracy.
Gastil speaks of a one’s ability to communicate while lacking reason and judgment. This concept resonated throughout ‘12 Angry Men’ through the men’s initial voting process. The film opens with the judge’s monologue regarding the importance of the juror’s decisions and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Despite this information, the jurors prove to lack insight beyond what the attorney’s had shared or asked. The leader’s attempt to organize the group by juror number was a valiant effort towards maintaining some structure and group organization. When the votes were tallied, 11 of the 12 jurors had voted ‘guilty’, quickly escalating the tension in the room and loosing respect towards one’s speaking time. The jurors were quick to speak over one another and raise their voices in both frustration and attempt to be overheard. By the end of the juror’s short mediation, rudeness had taken the room at several occasions leading to stifled conversation and belittlement. The tables turned with each potential reason for doubt as the jurors opened their minds towards possibilities beyond their original thoughts proving Gastil’s point that “We often know precious little about whom or what we are voting for.”
Reasoning and evidence was limited in the minds of 11 jurors to merely the information obtained by the court. Simple thinking, experimentation and knowledge sharing easily debunked many of the “facts” that the jurors continued to refer to. I believe that had these same rationales been used and shared throughout the trial, many of the jurors would have initially voted ‘not guilty.’ Personal juror issues such as prejudice, personal conflict and time constraint altered the rational process for many of the jurors.
Emotion played a large role in the discussion of this case. There were occurrences of both positive and negative emotions throughout the deliberation, which gave way to the juror’s decision. Conflict was witnessed from both personal and intrapersonal communication among the group. Negative emotion was noted through prejudice, negative personal encounters and overall negative attitude. Positive emotion was witnessed in the jurors ability to verbalize that sometimes they “don’t know” the answer. Openness to information is a positive attribute and leads to positive emotion.
This was a really interesting film. It is the first time I watch it. It just made me think how things can change when only one person decides to raise their voice and not follow what everyone else was saying.
They used raising their hands as a voting procedure to made a decision. When the jurors deliberated that all seem angry and were sweating since it was really hot thus contributing to the idea of finishing this deliberation as fast as they could. When they started deliberating all of the jurors besides one did not hesitate in raising their hand to proclaim the boy guilty. They also used secret voting. For me this was a turning point in the film since one more juror voted not guilty forcing to continue with the deliberation about the facts that lead to the boy killing his father. If it was not for this the juror would not have even consider talking about how the facts did not make sense and give hope to the boy.
Emotion played an important role from the beginning to the end of the film. At the beginning most of them seem angry and very decisive about they decision they were going to make. After they started deliberating it seem that many of them got angrier as juror number 8 wanted to defend the boy and thing and rationalized about the facts and the decision they were making. Specially 3rd Juror compares him to his own son, with whom he was estranged, and 10th Juror reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant when he was stereotyping about where the boy came from. These were negative emotions that affected the way those juror made their decision. On the other hand we could see sympathy from juror number 8th that was the one that voted not guilty and also from juror 5th. These positive emotions allow for the argument to continue changing and to change the closed minds of the other jurors forcing them to think.
For me the most important member of the film was Henry Honda he was the lead character and in a way the leader that actually was able to conduct a deliberation and change people minds even though was under significant pressure form his fellow jurors, but he was determined to explore all of the evidence before he reaches a conclusion. He is the example of a leader he was able to build alliances by the force of his arguments and other times by listening to others. Thus showing the other jurors the class of person he is. His arguments created uncertainty in the minds of his fellow jurors but he never forced them to change their minds instead he allowed them to follow their own thoughts. Another characteristic of a good leader is the character Honda knew hoe essential was for him to maintain his composure, clarity and focus. Even in the midst of all of the emotions that fill the room, he stayed calm and measured. He was the real leader since the jury foreman exercised little leadership.
12 Angry men
This film shows us how cases are processed bt the judicial system once the defense and prosecution have rested. This case specifically was about a hound man whom the prosecutors claimed to have murdered his father. What began as an open and shit murder case soon unraveled to be an investigation plot by the jurors. Henry Funda’s character presented a cluster of clues that created doubt, prejudices and preconceptions about the trial,the accused and each juror personally.
In the film the system in which each juror voted and was allowed to give their opinion by was counter productive. This concept was brought about because for instance when Henry Funda decided to voice his doubts and state why he cannot just agree to a guilty verdict, he was intercepted by other jurors on the panel who believe this was an open and shot case and mr Funda should just agree with every one else guilty vote. Mr Funda’ character was face with constant outburst and defiance by the other jurors. Even the foreman had no control over the disruptive jurors.
Mr Funda’s vote of not guilty challenged the other Jurors theories that later cause them all to have reasonable doubts. One juror brought his personal feelings into the room. He compared the accused to his son, whom he had a fight with over two years ago and have yet to see him, and felt the accused was being ungrateful to his father and this feeling strongly pursuaded his guilty stance. Another juror was very stereotypical and prejudice, he believe being that the accused grew up poor and from a different class in society “his kind” as he so eloquently puts it must be guilty.
The final vote was unanimously not guilty. This was a result of mr Funda somehow managing to have other jurors question the evidence presented to them. Those of them that claimed they were basing their decision on facts soon saw loop holes in the “facts”. Mr Funda questioned the eye witnesses statements. The lady who wore glasses how was she so sure she saw the accused or even the old man with the bad leg how could he have reached the door that fast to see the accused leaving. Mr Funda went through each witness and piece of evidence with a fine tooth comb and left reasonable doubts in each instance having other jurors question the facts. This due diligence saved a young man from the death penalty.
Twelve jury men composed by a judge in New York city court law room in a play setting was tasked to deliberate on a murder case involving an accused if found guikty, would receive a mandatory death sentence. One could tell the mood of the twelve jurors was that of anger and state of restlessness to dispatch the case in less time so they could go about their businesses. They were presented with some facts about the case and some of these facts inckude: a woman who lived across the street testified that she saw the boy in this case the defendant kill his bilogical father. According to this woman she saw the boy through her window of a passing elevated train. The boy’s father had earlier hit him at least twice after an argument with the father. According to juror 3 who owns a business and had a bad relationship with his own son relate to the boy’s past brash with the law including trying to slash another teenager with a knife. 8th juror is the only one who votes ‘not guilty’ at the first vote (11-1). He is discontent with the way the trial was handled and proposes that they discuss the evidence presented so they don’t convict an innocent young man. He was met with opposition from the other jurirs. He was the chief advocate for the young man and a firm believer in rule of law and the presumption of innocence till proven guilty. Through his potent and consistent query to all questions he was able to change the vote once again to three other jurors agreeing with him to change their vote to “not guilty”. He also tried to prove or provide further argument to doubt the old man’s evidence that he heard from upstairs a fight and shouting “I will kill you ” and a body hitting the floor. He saw the boy running down the stairs. Meanwhile, the boy claimed he had an alibi since he was at the movies even though he doesn’t remember the title of the movie. Juror 10 is one hard line attackers of the defendant and has fascist tendencies towards the boy. His dislike for the defendant started right from the jury room. Juror 11 is a German immigrant watchmaker he believes in the American justice system. He listens to argument from all sides and tries to make a switch from his earlier stands of guilty to not guilty. The 9th juror questions the eye witness testimony of the woman living across the street, she wore glasses but chose not to wear them in court. Was she wearing them whiles laying in bed when she saw the murder through her window? This was hard to believe and also led to other jurors having doubts in their minds. Finally, the juror reached a verdict of not guilty and now leaves the courtroom
The film 12 Angry Men was a great example of the deliberative process as it relates to citizens role in the legal enforcement process. The foreman of the jury from the start of the film does his best to assert his role and guide the process to be respectable and organized. He is the one who sets the ground rules for speaking. Informally it seems to be understood that one man speaks at a time to assure that everyone is heard. This process has its moments of difficulty in the film as the men get tired and tense and begin arguing and belittling each other.
Rules to decisions making are also first asserted by the foreman who prioritizes votes both private and by show of hands. The group maintains the rule that any man can call for a vote at any point in the process. Other rules include the rule of evidence. Each man is expected to give his opinion and support it with arguments from the case. No ones point can be taken seriously without some sort of arguments as to why. Requiring proof of everyone’s opinion is what drives the film and the decision making process. It is what allows each man to work through his verdict and allows the others to challenge it. Ultimately the evidence rule is what leads to the not guilty verdict.
Evidence plays a crucial role in the decision making process. It seems at times that evidence plays a larger role with the jury deliberation than it did during the actual trial. Each man at some point in the film uses both evidence from the trail and evidence from real life. For example the speed of the passing train and the ability of the ‘old man’ to have witnessed the defendant fleeing the scene. However, there were times were the men who claim to be considering facts are actually considering falsehoods and being irrational. For example the man who went on about the inherent behaviors of ‘those kind’ believes that he is only considering facts. However, he is unable to step away from his prejudice assumptions and that effects his ability to rationally participate in the deliberation process. He is instead using the evidence from the trail to fit his preconceived facts about the defendant.