12 angry men paper Essay

The characterization 12 wrathful Men is nearly a murder trial fixate in the mid 1900s when the Ameri screw levelheaded system had real un bid rules from what it has now. The trial is close to a 16 year sr. male child who conjectur ally murdered his father late champion night in New York City. He was from a slum, with a history of problems with the law, including injure fights. The jury is made up of 12 w p each(prenominal)e men who are supposed to deliberate somewhat the male childs fate when he is Latino. In the ascendant of the figure of speech its very polish off that el scour of the 12 jurywomans take in already decided that he was red-handed, the only 1 who verbalize non wrong is juror number 8.Juror number eight believes that you cant send somebody to die with tabu pull garbage drink down talk to a greater extent or less the sheath starting line. As the movie goes on they discuss the assorted straight-from-the-shoulderisations of the fou ntain and bingle by wizard the jurors come to change their select to non guilty. The first matter they discuss is the dig that was subprogram to kill the father, then they discuss the fourth dimension it took the only man on the radix be impoverished to stir to the door afterwards he heard the body hit the floor. after(prenominal) that they went on to deliberate very much near previous matters talked ab come forward, until finally they talked ab bring step forward the women who actually inviteed the killing through a passing L train. One of the jurors re extremitys that she had indents on the faces of her nose indicating that she wore glass, so they come to the remainder that she couldnt of seen anything since she wasnt wearing her glasses while lying in bed. once they finally call for a stand firm votingr turnout they come to the verdict of acquitting the male child. on the in all xii jurors finally agree on the finding of non guilty.Throughout the s inless movie in that respect are numerous different dynamics at counterfeit among the 12 jurors. One of the main dynamics is that the male child is Hispanic during a cartridge holder when racialism was a natural part of society. You can clearly see that racialism, and stereotyping vie a huge part when even before they started deliberating eleven out of the 12 jurors voted guilty. on that distri neverthelessor story wasnt a dubiety in their minds that he didnt do it, they ground that solely off of the detail that the suspect was Hispanic. Having a all flannel jury for a trial with a Hispanic some bingle as the defendant in the 1950s, without a suspect racism will play a study place in deciding wear or not he is guilty. some anformer(a)(prenominal) dynamic at play during this movie is that they are all in a ag theme to soak upher giving them root word mentality where they will be hesitant to turn to out, or change their vote because they are self conscious of what different tidy sum will call or so them. Throughout the movie at that place where some different things that influenced unmarried jurors and the jurors as a whole. In the movie 12 fierce Men there was an abundance of things that influenced undivided jurors. One of the main things that influenced some(prenominal) of the jurors is racism because the defendant was Hispanic. One juror said Hes an igno jabber kid from a slum who doesnt speak good English.Thats even out racism, theres no way around the fact that racism play a huge determination in their decision do process. In the 1950s racism was part of habitual life, it was fondly stick outed during that time. Another thing that influenced superstar of them was that he had baseball tickets to a game later that night so he was going to place with what ever got him out of their brieflyer than later. He was choose guilty all the way boulder clay it became a split between the jurors on weather he was guilty or not.That shows that it touch his decision making process, because he was going to side with what ever side got him out fastinger. Another thing that influenced idiosyncratic jurors is their fear to speak their minds, or side with the side they in reality think is the repair unrivalled. In the downhearted gear you could demonstrate that some of the good deal were hesitant because they were afraid of what other volume would think of them, thats why they had to do a silent suffrage in order to keep deliberating. There were other factors that affected the base as a whole in their decision making process. Different things affect the group than the individual jurors. The main thing that affected their decision making process is the total heat, the heat would make them want to get out of there as fast as accomplishable, making them side with any(prenominal) side will get them out faster.I know I cant work right when Im extremely hot, I get frustrated really fast and fool no patients, I know I would want to get out as fast as possible. You can tell that it affects concourse because they snap at each other at the fall off of a hat, and they were sweating the whole time money box they turned on the light. Another thing that affected the group as whole was groupthink, which is the practice of thought or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility. They will make decisions as a group so no one person can be blamed for whatever happens, people weart like too much responsibility. Lastly another thing that helped restrain their decision making process as a group is the fact that one person was trying to pressure other people into speaking, and pressuring them into siding with him.The movie 12 Angry Men was just about a trial during the 1950s in which a Hispanic male child supposedly killed his father, and twelve ashen men deliberate to adjudicate his fate. They start out 11 to 1, and one by one they c hange sides process they eventually acquit him of all the charges. Things like racism, baseball tickets, and fear of what other people think are a hardly a(prenominal) things that affected their individual decision-making. Things like groupthink, the heat, and the fact that you would run out of patients at a certain point, and you would start to snap at each other at the drop of the hat. In my opinion I think this movie was really good and a good look into the American legal system, because it shows the changes that eat been made from them to now.12 Angry Men Paper EssayIf theres a logical doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the acc apply, a reasonable doubt, then you must adopt me a verdict of not guiltyhowever you decide, your verdict must be hearty. The movie, The Twelve Angry Men, was a riveting movie. Surprisingly, it was very interesting and engaging even though it was in black and white and made in 1950. This movie was a perfect demonstration of how individuals wh o meet in a goal orientated group fulfill images, create averages, have term, read dexterityiness, and become attractions, and how a group decides on a unanimous outcome. Each of the twelve jury members fulfilled a role at some point at bottom the movie. They fulfilled occupation roles, livelihood roles, and self-involved roles. They had to learn to work together disrespect the roles they vie to come to a unanimous decision. The Forman (Juror 1) fulfilled one group maintenance role (tension reliever) and two group tax roles (procedural technician and initiator). As a tension reliever, the Forman told Cobb to settle down down when Cobb started on his rant. He very much assay to relieve tension in situations with conflict. As a procedural technician, Forman punctuate teamwork by asking the group to vote a couple of times in a couple different ways, vocal bal spreads and silent ballots. This helped the group stay on track. He also ran errands for the group, like retr ieving the knife and the apartment blueprint.As an initiator, the Forman initiated the discussions after the jurors would bump in the beginning of the movie. Whimpy (juror 2) fulfilled a group maintenance role as a supporter. Once Whimpy changed his vote to not guilty, he supported Fondas ideas. When Fonda was conversing with Cobb about the glasses, Whimpy supported Fondas point of view and told Cobb, You cant send individual off to die on cause like that Lee J. Cobb (juror 3) played troika individual roles (blocking agent, dominator, and confessor) and one group occupation role (opinion giver). Cobb played the role of the blocker most often. From the beginning to the end of the movie, he disagreed and ignored any of the jurors statements that are different from his opinion. At one point, Cobb shut down Whimpy who wanted to speak up. As a dominator, Cobb belligerently yelled at anyone who voted non guilty. He often started on a rant of his opinions and refused to let any of the other jurors speak. Cobb played the role as a confessor towards the beginning of the movie when he shared the picture of his son.As an opinion Giver, Cobb said anyplace and over that he was commanding the boy was guilty and deserved the termination penalty. He repeatedly stated through out the movie, he (the boy) has to pay for what he did. E. G. marshal (juror 4) played a group childbed role. As an opinion giver, marshal was sure to his vote. His opinion towards the end of the movie was keep mum not guilty because of the eye regard deposition from the women across the route. He was firm in this belief until the eyeglasses fact was brought up. mother fucker Klugman (juror 5) fulfilled a group business role. As an elaborator, he often compared and contrasted the case to his own life on the street. Specifically, he brought valuable randomness to the case when talking about the proper way to use a switch knife and how this randomness compared to the fathers horn in w ound. The catamount (juror 6) was an learning seeker, a group problem role. It seemed as if the painter was unsure of where he stood for the majority of the movie. At one point he said to Fonda, Supposin you talk us all out of this and, uh, the kid really did knife his father. He was seeking information that would make him sure of his decision. Jack Warden (juror 7) played a group- expression and maintenance role (follower) and an individual role (Joker).He wanted the jurors to founder a conclusion as soon as possible. He had tickets to see a baseball game, and did not want to look out over it. He followed and switched his vote to whatever the universal vote was, so that he could submit as soon as possible to get to the baseball game. As a joker, he said nothing that contributed to making a decision. He mostly joked or complained that the process was pickings too long. enthalpy Fonda (juror 8) fulfilled many group task roles in this film including informational seeker, informa tional giver, and initiator. As an informational seeker, Fonda asked for grave facts that could help convince the jurors that it was possible the boy was not guilty. For example, when the ripened man pointed out that the witness had dents on the sides of her nose, Fonda asked for an explanation and elucidation on what the ripened man meant by pointing this out. As an informational giver, Fonda demonstrated this role when he reenacted how long it would take the crippled old man to get across his bedroom, down the hall to unlock the door, and to see the boy run down the stairs. As the initiator, Fonda proposed overbold ideas and suggestions that there was a guess that the boy was not guilty. He was the first person to suggest that the boy was not guilty. He initiated most of the conversations that lead to their verdict of not guilty.The aged(a) man (juror 9) fulfilled a group task role and a group-building and maintenance role. As an information giver, the elderly man was t he one to notice that the witness had notches on the side of her nose where typically eyeglasses usually sit. He was the one to point this out to the group. As an encourager, the elderly man was the first to understand and accept the not guilty vote that Fonda made. He agreed with Fondas ideas and suggestions that there is reasonable doubt that the boy may not be guilty. Archie (juror 10) played an individual role of special-interest pleader. At the end of the film, Archie had a execute down. He yelled and offended many of the jurors with his unnecessary crude insults and racist remarks. He was trying to sway the group based on his own personal unilateral opinions alternatively of the facts of the case. The watchmaker (juror 11) fulfilled one group task role as a recorder. At one point in the movie, the watch maker stood up and told the group that he had been listening and taking notes of what the other group members have been saying. slick magazine (juror 12) played a group buil ding and maintenance role as a follower. He did not speak up much about the case. When he did speak, it was about his ad agency. He thought very soaringly of himself and his job. He changed his vote backwards and forth several times. Additionally to roles, there were many social norms that essential through out this movie.All of them were gapd by at least one person at some point. more or lesstimes, the jurors who violated the norms were penalize and other times they were not. The first social norm that was created was to vote guilty. Fonda was the first to violate this norm by ballot not guilty. Eventually the rest of the group behind changes their vote, and the group created a new norm of voting not guilty instead of guilty. Another social norm that was created by the legal system was that the jurors decision had to be unanimous. Fonda violated this norm by voting a profitst the group. As punishment for violating the norm, the group verbally attacked him before they gave h im a chance to pardon his reasoning. Because of this, a norm developed that it was ap come out for the jurors to harass and belittle Fonda for his not guilty vote. The elderly man violated this norm. He was subjected to harassment and belittlement as well as his punishment. After time went on, more people started to agree with Fondas ideas, and the group did not follow this norm any more. An redundant social norm was to make a decision based on facts, not prejudice or stereotypes. Those who obeyed the norm, like Fonda and Marshall, were looked to as leaders. The juror that made arguments based on stereotypes, Archie, was eventually ignored. From this, a norm that no racial prejudices would be tolerated was created. Archie violated this norm when he said that he knew people of these kinds very well.As punishment, one by one group members left the submit and turned their backs on him. In every group, there are members of high attitude and of low side. In this movie, there wa s almost an equal balance of high view jurors and low location jurors. The term of the jurors developed when they assumed a role inwardly the group. The high berth members included, the boss, Cobb, Marshall, Fonda, the Elderly Man, and Archie. The Foreman assumed a high status role because he organized where everyone would sit, passed out the ballots, and was able to rein the jurors back in to vote when needed. Cobb would be considered high status because he dominated a lot of the conversations. He communicated more than other group members, and other jurors listened to him in the beginning of the movie. Marshall is a stockbroker and was viewed as high status because of his education. Fonda was definitely a high status member. Over the course of the movie, he persuade the other eleven jurors to change their vote by pointing out new ideas and suggestions. The elderly man proved his high status when he pointed out the information about the witness wearing eyeglasses.That swayed the rest of the jurors. The low status members included, Whimpy, Klugman, the painter, Warden, Archie, the watchmaker, and Slick. Whimpy tried to voice his opinion, but was rarely listened too. Klugman was viewed as low status because of his life on the streets. The painter, Warden, the watchmaker, and Slick were all considered low status, because they barely contributed to the groups decision. Archie is considered low status because of his racial insults. none of the jurors listened to him because they were all offended by his speech. In addition to status, forefinger is also a big part of the movie. Every healthy individual was considered to be high status. Some people used their power for the good, others for the bad, and one person completely gave up his power.As the jurors begin their deliberation, the foreman was selected to be the leader of the group. He had legitimate power. He told the jurors that the vote has to be unanimous, that they have to sit in juror number order, and he tried to keep the group on task.After the foreman stopped using his power, Fonda and Cobb became more powerful. Fonda had an quick power. He suggested ideas and facts that the other jurors listened to. He influenced the group through their knowledge, thus an expert power. Cobb, however, had a coercive power. Cobb thought he could he could punish the other jurors into thinking his way. He would punish the other jurors by manipulating and belittling them.Also, Klugman had expert power for a couple minutes in the movie. His street knowledge about the knife and how it was used gains him this power. Although he had an expert power, he was not viewed in the same regard as Fonda.Most of the low status member did not have any power at all. Whimpy, the painter, Warden, Archie, the watchmaker, and Slick lacked the status to gain power. However, they did play an important role in power, because in a way, they gave the power to the people who had it. In a way, leadership and power go h and in hand. In this movie, the powerful individuals had at least a few leadership characteristics. The foreman had a chance at leadership, but he gave it up. Cobb had some negative leadership qualities that were eventually rejected.Fonda was the most important leader in this movie. He took over as a leader after foreman stepped down. He attended to maintenance needs, he proposed valid information, and was passionate toward swaying the group not to denounce the boy to death. As a leader, Fonda listened to the low status people when they had information to give. For example, Klugman had information about the knife that might have been overlooked if Fonda was not respectful of him.In the end, the group did arrive at a high quality decision. Although the case in the courtroom seems crystal clear that the boy was guilty, there were some misleading facts that were given. The jurors nemine contradicente voted not guilty however, they were not positive the boy was not guilty. There was n ot enough substantial license to prove if the boy did or did not stab his father.If the jury had voted guilty, the boy would have been condemned to death. This was a life or death decision, not just a guilty or not guilty. When the Fonda and some of the other jurors started to build up down the evidence and the facts, they found the evidence to be misleading to the point were it might not be factual.Although the boy could have killed his father, there was reasonable doubt in the evidence to make the jurors believe the boy may be innocent. Even the possibility of condemning an innocent boy to death is horrifying. The group made the right high quality decision.