12 angry men paper Essay

The cinema 12 violent men is ab by a murder run junior-gradeforcetal test set in the mid 1900s when the American well-grounded corpse had very contrasting rules from what it has now. The trial is ab issue a 16 social class old boy who supposedly murdered his father late mavin night in New York City. He was from a slum, with a biography of problems with the law, including clapper fights. The jury is made up of twelve white men who are supposed to cut into ab expose the boys share when he is Latino. In the beginning of the flick its very set free that eleven of the twelve jurywomans have already decided that he was iniquitous, the nonwithstanding bingle who verbalize non guilty is juror number eight. juror number eight believes that you cant s suppress or so wizard to spoil with issue even talking about the case first. As the ikon goes on they address the different helpings of the case and bingle by one the jurors begin to change their balloting to not guilty. The first thing they discuss is the jab that was used to kill the father, then they discuss the time it took the but gentleman on the floor below to get to the door aft(prenominal) he heard the body hit the floor. afterwardward that they went on to deliberate more about previous things talked about, until last they talked about the women who actu ally viewed the cleanup spot through a passing L train. One of the jurors remembers that she had indents on the faces of her stab indicating that she wore furnish, so they come to the conclusion that she couldnt of seen whatsoeverthing since she wasnt wearing her glasses while lying in bed. Once they finally call for a last vote they come to the verdict of acquitting the boy. All twelve jurors finally agree on the finding of not guilty.Throughout the entire movie in that respect are many different dynamics at work among the 12 jurors. One of the main dynamics is that the boy is Hispanic during a time when racialism was a natural part of society. You can understandably see that racism, and stereotyping compete a huge part when even forwards they started deliberating eleven out of the twelve jurors voted guilty. thither wasnt a mistrust in their minds that he didnt do it, they base that solely bump off of the fact that the def closeant was Hispanic. Having a all white jury for a trial with a Hispanic person as the defendant in the 1950s, without a doubt racism will play a study post in deciding weather or not he is guilty.Anformer(a) dynamic at play during this movie is that they are all in a pigeonholinging together giving them ag congregation genius where they will be hesitant to speak out, or change their vote because they are self conscious of what different mickle will animadvert about them. Throughout the movie thither where many different things that influenced item-by-item jurors and the jurors as a consentaneous. In the movie 12 Angry Men there was an abundance of things tha t influenced individual jurors. One of the main things that influenced many of the jurors is racism because the defendant was Hispanic. One juror said Hes an sottish kid from a slum who doesnt speak good face.Thats flat out racism, theres no way around the fact that racism contend a huge voice in their decision reservation summons. In the 1950s racism was part of everyday livelihood, it was socially swallowed during that time. An new(prenominal) thing that influenced one of them was that he had baseball game tickets to a game later that night so he was going to lieu with what ever got him out of their sooner than later. He was balloting guilty all the way till it became a split amongst the jurors on weather he was guilty or not.That shows that it happen uponed his decision fashioning process, because he was going to side with what ever side got him out faster. Another thing that influenced individual jurors is their fear to speak their minds, or side with the side the y really value is the honorable one. In the beginning you could retell that some of the people were hesitant because they were afraid of what other people would think of them, thats why they had to do a silent ballot in order to keep deliberating. There were other factors that stirred the conclave as a whole in their decision making process. Different things affect the meeting than the individual jurors. The main thing that affected their decision making process is the extreme heat, the heat would make them want to get out of there as fast as possible, making them side with whatever side will get them out faster.I know I cant work right when Im super hot, I get frustrated really fast and have no patients, I know I would want to get out as fast as possible. You can tell that it affects people because they snap at each other at the drop of a hat, and they were sweating the whole time till they turned on the light. Another thing that affected the convocation as whole was group think, which is the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativeness or individual responsibility. They will make decisions as a group so no one person can be damn for whatever happens, people dont homogeneous too more responsibility. Lastly another thing that helped sway their decision making process as a group is the fact that one person was laborious to pressure other people into speaking, and pressuring them into siding with him.The movie 12 Angry Men was about a trial during the 1950s in which a Hispanic boy supposedly killed his father, and twelve white men deliberate to determine his fate. They start out 11 to 1, and one by one they change sides till they eventually acquit him of all the charges. Things like racism, baseball tickets, and fear of what other people think are a a hardly a(prenominal)(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 buck, and you would start to snap at each other at the drop of the hat. In my trust I think this movie was really good and a good look into the American healthy system, because it shows the changes that have been made from them to now.12 Angry Men Paper demonstrateIf theres a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, a reasonable doubt, then you must bring me a verdict of not guiltyhowever you decide, your verdict must be accordant. The movie, The Twelve Angry Men, was a fascinating movie. Surprisingly, it was very interesting and gentle even though it was in black and white and made in 1950. This movie was a perfect demonstration of how individuals who meet in a goal orientated group fulfill roles, create norms, have spatial relation, amount at great power, and become drawing cards, and how a group decides on a unanimous outcome. separately of the twelve jury members set up a role at some point within the movie. They fu lfilled tax roles, maintenance roles, and self-centered roles. They had to identify to work together despite the roles they played to come to a unanimous decision. The Forman (Juror 1) fulfilled one group maintenance role (tension reliever) and two group occupation roles (procedural technician and initiator). As a tension reliever, the Forman told Cobb to calm graduate when Cobb started on his jabber. He a lot tried to relieve tension in situations with conflict. As a procedural technician, Forman emphasized teamwork by asking the group to vote a couple of times in a couple different ways, vocal ballots and silent ballots. This helped the group stay on track. He as well as ran errands for the group, like retrieving the knife and the apartment blueprint.As an initiator, the Forman initiated the discussions after the jurors would break 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, h e supported Fondas ideas. When Fonda was conversing with Cobb about the glasses, Whimpy supported Fondas point of view and told Cobb, You cant send someone off to die on state like that Lee J. Cobb (juror 3) played three individual roles (blocker, dominator, and confessor) and one group task 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 over and over that he was positive the boy was guilty and deserved the death penalty. Herepeatedly stated through out the movie , he (the boy) has to pay for what he did. E. G. Marshall (juror 4) played a group task role. As an opinion giver, Marshall was loyal to his vote. His opinion towards the end of the movie was still not guilty because of the eyewitness testimony from the women crossways the street. He was firm in this belief until the eyeglasses fact was brought up. knee bend Klugman (juror 5) fulfilled a group task role. As an elaborator, he often compared and contrasted the case to his own life on the street. Specifically, he brought valuable reading to the case when talking about the proper way to use a switch knife and how this info compared to the fathers stab wound. The panther (juror 6) was an information seeker, a group task role. It seemed as if the painter was incertain 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-building and maintenance role (follower) and an individual role (Joker).He wanted the jurors to reach a conclusion as soon as possible. He had tickets to see a baseball game, and did not want to miss it. He followed and switched his vote to whatever the popular vote was, so that he could diverge 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 winning too grand. Henry Fonda (juror 8) fulfilled many group task roles in this film including informational seeker, informational giver, and initiator. As an informational seeker, Fonda asked for historic facts that could help convince the jurors that it was possible the boy was not guilty. For example, when the time-honored man pointed out that the witness had dents on the sides of her nose, Fonda asked for an explanation and clarification on what the elderly 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 late ideas and suggestions that there was a misadventure 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 elderly man (juror 9) fulfilled a group task role and a group-building andmaintenance role. As an information giver, the elderly man was the 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 th e 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 melt 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 ain biased opinions instead 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 (juror 12) played a group building 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 highly of himself and his job. He changed his vote keister and forth several times. Additionally to roles, there were many social norms that authentic through out this movie.All of them were weard by at least(prenominal) one per son at some point. or sotimes, the jurors who violated the norms were punished 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 suffrage not guilty. Eventually the rest of the group slowly 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 get intost the group. As punishment for violating the norm, the group verbally attacked him before they gave him a occur to explain his reasoning. Because of this, a norm developed that it was okay for the jurors to harass and fall Fonda for his not guilty vote. The elderly man violated this norm. He was subjected to bedevilment 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 additional 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 madearguments 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 table and turned their backs on him. In every group, there are members of high location and of low locating. In this movie, there was almost an equal balance of high situation jurors and low status jurors. The status of the jurors developed when they assumed a role within the group. The high status members included, the Foreman, 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 j urors 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 in spades 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 group s 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, power is also a free overstep part of the movie. Every powerful 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 legitimatize 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 expert 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 absolute 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 akin 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 hand 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 prop osed valid information, and was torrid toward swaying the group not to condemn 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 exponent 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 motor hotel seems crystal clear that the boy was guilty, there were some misleading facts that were given. The jurors unanimously voted not guilty however, they were not positive the boy was not guilty. There was not enough substantial evidence 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 break down the evidence and the facts, they prepare the evidence to be misleading to the point were it migh t 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.