The Foreman is responsible for keeping the jury organized, which is his main focus in the play. He is an assistant football coach outside of the jury room. 2nd Juror
A shy bank clerk who takes time to feel comfortable enough to participate in the discussion. 3rd Juror
3rd Juror is a small business owner. He proudly says that he started his business from scratch and now employs thirty-four workers. We learn early on that he has a bad relationship with his own son, with whom he is no longer speaking.
We are led to believe that this is a contributing factor to his prejudice against the defendant, accused of stabbing his own father. 3rd Juror is the last to be convinced and only changes his mind once he realizes that he is only projecting his feelings about his own son onto the defendant. 4th Juror
4th Juror is a stock broker. He wears glasses and seems to handle himself with a very serious air.
He deals with the facts of the case logically and concretely. 5th Juror
5th Juror works in a Harlem hospital and says that he himself has lived in the slums his entire life. This gives him insight into such details as the use of a switchblade. 6th Juror
A house painter, he is happy that the case continues as it means he doesn’t have to work, but is hesitant to put a potential killer back on the streets. He sticks up for 9th Juror, an old man, and seems to be a respectful man. 7th Juror
7th Juror’s main concern in the case is whether or not it will end before his ball game, for which he has tickets. He sells marmalade and is generally indifferent to the case. He changes his vote to “not guilty” simply because the tide of opinion switches, and he wants the deliberations to be over. 8th Juror
He is the only juror who votes “not guilty” at the first vote. He is
discontent with the way the trial was handled and wants them to discuss the evidence in greater detail. Met with much opposition, he continues to advocate for the boy. We learn that he is an architect, by trade. 9th Juror
9th Juror is an old man. He respects 8th Juror’s passion and sense of justice and quickly comes to his aid and becomes and advocate for the defendant. 10th Juror
He is one of the most fervent attackers of the defendant. Tactless and fairly bigoted, he condemns the defendant as “one of them” right from the start. 11th Juror
11th Juror is a German immigrant watchmaker. He is very patriotic and talks about how much he loves the American justice system. 12th Juror
12th Juror works for a marketing agency, to which job he refers to often. He seems constantly distracted from the case.
1. INITIAL CLARIFICATION
In this step, the Foreman wanted to make sure that everybody was willing to vote guilty. But the 8th juror who is an architect voted the boy not guilty and pressed for further discussions about the case. 2. PERSUASION BY 8th JUROR
Here the 8th juror convinces the others by various solid examples of how any other person could have killed the boy’s father, slowly he forms a group with a few other jurors who decided to vote not guilty. 3. CRIME SCENE ANALYSIS AND MAKING OF A FAKE KILLING
The crime scene was enacted by the jury members and it was determined how the witnesses could have been wrong. Slowly and steadily, there grew a majority of jury members who changed their decisions and supported the 8th juror. 4. COMMON CONCLUSION
There was just one jury member left to convince, who has had some bad personal problems with his son. In the end, he too gets convinced and agrees to favour the suspect. COLLECTIVE DECISION MAKING
The combine memory of a number of people is certainly better than that of an individual, and is tremendously advantageous in group decision-making. This was well demonstrated throughout the film in both the argument for and against guilty verdict, culminating in a fair fact-based decision of a “not guilty” verdict. A third and very important advantage is reduced influence of prejudice on final decision. In group decision-making, individual biases can be recognized, challenged and eliminated as demonstrated by the film. Fourthly, another advantage of group decision-making that was shown by this film is the fact that a more creative and innovative solutions to problems could emerge from group deliberations than would in an individual decision making process. Fifthly, there is a collective understanding in group decision-making
In the viewing of 12 Angry Men, we get an excellent example of how cooperative communities can be formed among diverse and divergent worldviews. It is significant to identify the exact manner in which Henry Fonda (the 8th Juror) formed a cooperative community within the vastly different worldviews present in the deliberation process.
We can draw from the film examples of how leadership can minimize rivalries, constructively integrate opposing views, and contribute to developing effective coalitions. The first positive step that Fonda’s character took toward constructively integrating opposing views was his overall approach to the situation. The opposing views of the jurors were utilized in order to understand differing perspectives. The underlying theme that seemed to be presented in the film was that the addition of multiple perspectives would provide different points of view that would eventually lead to the best solution. In order to minimize rivalries and integrate opposing views, it is important to view diversity as an opportunity as opposed to a threat to progress. The presence of varying perspectives, if handled effectively, provides the benefit of greater understanding
Cite this 12 Angry Men Analysis Different Steps Involved in This Movie
12 Angry Men Analysis Different Steps Involved in This Movie. (2016, Aug 03). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/12-angry-men-analysis/