Seems to be a man of wealth and position. He is a practiced speaker who presents himself well at all times. He seems to feel a little bit above the rest of the jurors. His only concern is with the facts in this case, and he is appalled at the behavior Of the Others. JUROR NO. 5: A naive, very frightened young man who takes his obligations in this case very seriously but, who finds it difficult to speak up when his elders have the floor. JUROR NO. 6: An honest but dull-witted man who comes upon his decisions slowly and carefully.
A man who finds it difficult to create costive opinions, but who must listen to and digest and accept those opinions offered by others which appeal to him most. JUROR NO. 7: A loud, flashy-handed salesman type who has more important things to do than to sit on a jury. He is quick to show temper, quick to form opinions on things about which he knows nothing. Is a bully and, of course, a coward. JUROR NO. 8: A quiet, thoughtful, gentle man. A man who sees all sides of every question and constantly seeks the truth. A man of strength tempered with compassion.
Above all, he is a man who wants justice to be done and will fight to see that it s. JUROR NO. 9: A mild gentle old man long since defeated by life and now merely waiting to die. A man who recognizes himself for what he is and mourns the days when it would have been possible to be courageous without shielding himself behind his many years. JUROR NO. 10 An angry, bitter man. He is man who antagonizes almost at sight. A bigot who places no values on any human life save his own, a man who has been nowhere and is going nowhere and knows it deep within him.
JUROR NO. 1 A man who speaks with an accent and who is ashamed humble, almost subservient to the people round him, but who will honestly seek justice because he has suffered through so much injustice. Juror NO. 12: A slick, bright advertising man who thinks of human beings in terms of percentages graphs, and polls and has no real understanding of people. He is a superficial snob, but trying to be a good fellow. Juror no. 1 tries to impose order in his capacity as Leader(or Foreman).
He plays the role of “leader”, A simple man who clearly does not understand the complexity of the task that lies before him but is trying to do everything not to let anyone else find this out. He appears at ease only once during the elm – when he talks about football. He has the misfortune to be selected Foreman of the jury – a task he clearly does not enjoy. Juror no. 2 is a small, quiet man who is clearly unaccustomed to giving his own opinion much less to expecting his views to be of any importance. In his subdued “observer and meek “information giver” role, No. 2 apparently finds comfort in his job – he is an accountant.
Juror no. 3 is probably the most complex personality in the film. He starts off like a pleasant self-made successful businessman, analyzing the case impartially, explaining the arguments well and is reasonably self- assured. As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate exploding in disbelieving anger and seems somehow to be personally involved with the case. His motivation for behaving as he does is revealed when he discloses that he’s not on good terms with his own son. Illusions to his animosity toward youth were made when he says that kids today have no respect and that he has not see his son in over a decade.
No. 3 namely plays the “aggressive”, “dominator” and “blocker” roles. His personal baggage with his own son “blocked” or prolonged the decision-making. Yet this overbearing, angry and sadistic man finally deserved our sorrow. Juror no. 4 is a self assured, slightly arrogant stockbroker. He obviously considers himself more intelligent than anyone else in the room, and he approaches the case with cool heartless logic but he does not take into account the feelings, the passions, and the characters of the people involved in the case. No. Played the role of the coldly, analytical “information giver. ” He ticks off the facts in the case as if he were reading closing stock prices from the newspaper. His studious and ever stern glare cuts down those who disagree with his. Juror no. Is a man under great emotional stress. He comes from the same social background as the accused boy – with whom he almost unwillingly seems to identify with. Paradoxically this appears one of the main reasons for him voting guilty – he does not want compassion to influence him – so ironically it does.
Reacting strongly and defensive, No. 5 represents the “emotional. ” Juror no. 6 is a simple man, quite readily admitting that everyone in the room is better qualified than he is to make decisions and offer explanations. But he really wants to see justice done and it worries him that he might make a mistake. Agreeing with everyone and talking even less, No. G’s role is the “silent” and “conformist. ” Juror no. 7 is the only one who really has no opinion on the case ” he talks of baseball.
Of the heat, of fixing the fan but the only reason he has for voting this way or that is to speed things up a bit so he might be out of the jury room as soon as possible. Not an evil man he just has no sense of morality whatsoever ” he can tell right from wrong but does not seem to think its worth the bother. Failing to take the group seriously, No. 7 falls into the “playboy” and “bored one” roles. Juror no. 8 is a caring man who as put more thought into the case than any of the other jurors. He tries to do his best in the face of seemingly impossible odds.
Both confident and nervous, as well as being under intense and hostile scrutiny, NO. 8 States that he couldn’t vote in that way for one simple reason; there is reasonTABLE doubt in his mind. No. 8 acts as “model person” and “nonconformist. ” Juror no. 9 is a wise old man. With his great life experience he has quite a unique way of looking at the case. After the juror no. 8 had refused to go without discussion he is ridiculed by the fellow men and is forced to change his decision but he isn’t move. He says that they all will have a second round of voting in which he will not vote.
If all other 11 men vote guilty, he will also vote the same and case can be closed. But this time Juror no 9 joins him and now it becomes 2 vs… 10. So now all have to sit and discuss the case. Juror no. 10 is the most horrifying character in the film. He votes guilty and does not even try to hide the fact hat he does so only because of the boy’s social background. The tragedy comes from the fact that his own social position is only a cut above the boy’s – which makes him all the more eager to stress the difference. The repulsive and poisonous bigotry of No. 0 puts him in “aggressive”, “debunker”, and “blocker” roles throughout the film. Juror no. 11, an immigrant watchmaker, is a careful analytical man, well mannered and soft spoken. He respects the right of people to have different opinions to his -and is willing to look at both sides of the problem. He loses his temper only Once – horrified by the complete indifference of Juror No. 7. His role is that of “group observer” as well as “opinion giver. ” Juror no. 12 is a young business type – perhaps he has his own opinions – but is careful to hide them.
What he as learnt out of life seems to be that intelligence is equal with agreeing with what the majority of people think. No. 12 works in advertising and views serving on a jury no more seriously than he would creating a laundry soap jingle. He is a smooth-talking but easily swayed young “airhead” who plays the role of “conformist. ” Analysis: Eleven jurors take the defendants guilt for granted at the beginning of 12 Angry Men because the defense attorney has done so little to challenge the prosecution’s narrative.
Juror #8 alone has noticed this. Juror #g’s performance as a surrogate defender is instructive with regard to the interlocking Ideals of due process and a jury of one’s peers. The process of considering competing narratives on which Juror #8 insists leads to a recounting of the trial through the jury’s deliberations. These begin, as the trial surely did, with the jurors’ impressions of the prosecutor: an “expert” with “a lot of drive” who “hammered home his points, one by one, in logical sequence. The case this “impressive” man has made is reproduced primarily by Juror #3 (an “exciTABLE” man certain of the defendant’s guilt for what turn out to be personal reasons) and Juror #4 (a coolly logical man certain of the pendant’s guilt for abstract sociological reasons) through what they call “the facts. ” The case entails two eyewitnesses, a murder weapon, and motive, backed up, we are led to suspect, by assumptions based on the defendant’s class and ethnicity.
Even without bias, however, as the prosecution’s case is laid out, Juror #g’s insistence that “[y]o can’t refute facts” seems correct. But Juror #3 has confused facts for proof. Juror #g’s lawyerly method gradually induces the others to interpret the meaning of the prosecutor’s “facts” for themselves. The momentum of the deliberations begins to change when Juror 8 questions the motive offered by the prosecution (being hit by his father) when “violence is practically a normal state of affairs for” the defendant.
He goes on to produce a knife identical to the murder weapon, undermining the prosecution’s association of a particular weapon with the defendant, and to reenact the elderly witness’s testimony, showing the witness could not have seen the defendant’s face. In the process “certain facts” are revealed as “social facts” shaped by contexts and interpretations. Juror #g’s masterly cross- examination technique only strengthens this point, as he gets jurors to interdict what they have already claimed to be unassailTABLE true over and over again.
An early instance is his challenge of Juror #ass’s reliance on the testimony of a witness when he had previously insisted that everyone of that witness’s ethnicity is a liar. When Juror #12 resists the idea that witnesses might be wrong, Juror #8 asks him whether he can know with certainty that they have not made a mistake. With his own imperfect knowledge implicated, Juror #1 2 is forced to concede that “[t]his isn’t an exact science. ” Later, Juror #8 baits Juror #3 into threatening to kill him, despite Juror #g’s earlier claim hat people making such threats always mean it.
The jury’s certainty, and the pro-conviction majority, begins to erode. In this part of the deliberations, Juror #8 does what the defense attorney failed to do”he tests whether the prosecution’s case leaves room for reasonTABLE doubt. Both the district attorney and the defense have, for example, apparently missed the physical characteristics of certain witnesses (a limp in one case, bad eyesight in another) that might have undermined their veracity. Once Juror #8 has established the possibility of reasonTABLE doubt, the peculiar thing that juries o starts to happen: their individual experience and impressions begin to work together.
Juror #11 wonders why the defendant would return to the scene Of the crime. “From what was presented at the trial the boy looks guilty,” he observes, “on the surface. But maybe if we go deeper Juror #2 wonders about the angle of the stab wound, a part of the prosecutors story that has been “bothering me a little. ” Juror #9, an older man himself, explains why the elderly witness might have exaggerated what he saw to be important. Juror #6 has been painting near an el track and knows the deafening sound of a passing train.
Juror #5 grew up in a neighborhood like the defendants and can demonstrate the proper use of a switchblade knife. In this way, the film reveals the crucial role that the individual experiences and knowledge of jurors plays in what a jury does, as well as the collaborative process through which juries deliberate. By his initial not-guilty vote, Juror #8, insists that their task is to “talk about” the evidence offered at trial. Discussing the evidence strikes provocation jurors as a “waste of time,” but as the film unfolds, it becomes increasingly clear that time and talk are the essential tools of a jury.
Without actual deliberation there can be no fair trial. One is disinterest or impartiality”the sense that the deliberations ought not become personal. Another important value that emerges more slowly from the deliberations is integrity. Juror #8 explains his not-guilty vote in terms of not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first’”as does Juror when he changes his vote in support of Juror #8 out of “respect” for his “motives. By the time adjustor #7 attempts to change his vote merely to expedite a verdict, the majority of he jury rejects the shift because it lacks conviction. A juror must believe in his vote. As the central importance of integrity is established in the group, its connection to the democratic values of dissent and independence also emerges. Each man has a voice as well as a vote, and the group enforces the mandate that no individual should be silenced. (The one exception is the exclusion of Juror #10 during his racist rant”and the group here is rejecting Juror g’s position as not merely ignorant but undemocratic. Deliberation: procedure puts the integrity of each juror very much on the line”as the roof discovers when it attempts to employ a secret ballot on the second vote, “Ct]here are no secrets in a jury room. ” Each man has to own his position publicly. It is significant, however, that only those who vote guilty are required to justify their position. Just as the defendant is not required to prove his innocence, no juror with reasonTABLE doubt must defend that doubt.
Only guilt must be proved, and in this way the process the jury employs further reveals the “job” the jury must do”to reach a verdict when it is not possible to know with certainty. The collaborative process of interpreting the evidence that begins once Juror #8 has successfully questioned the prosecution’s narrative has two effects. One is to generate a sense of community among the group of strangers. In the breaks in the deliberation, moments of interpersonal intimacy”the acceptance of an offered cough drop, the sharing of a personal anecdote”replace previously defensive and hostile asides.
By the time Juror #10 launches into his bigoted tirade, the jury moves in unison physically to isolate and reject him. And by the end of the film the formal process of voting has been woven informally into the invitation, indicating just how much the conversation has changed. The second effect of the group’s collaborative interpretation of the evidence”exploring alternative narratives”provokes pro-conviction jurors to accuse Juror #8 and others of inventing “fTABLEs” and “stories” and “fairy tales,” of manipulating the “facts. Juror #6 articulates the danger starkly when he asks Juror #8, “Supposing you talk us all out this, and the kid really did knife his father? ” But as Juror #6 himself comes to recognize, ignoring these alternative narratives leads to the dogmatic certainty that ultimately reveals itself as destructive to Persephone. Both Juror #1 0, whose bigotry breaks down into insecurity, and Juror #3, whose anger dissolves into heartbreak, embody the human cost Of blind certainty.
Blind certainty”whether it derives from sociological generalization or personal experience”is as much on trial in 12 Angry Men as the young man accused of killing his father. This trial of prejudice”which first appears as a diffuse and dispassionate presumption of guilt uniting the jurors, but erupts into divisive and unproductive anger”ends not in a verdict but in renunciation. Gradually, the embers of the jury jettison their prejudices and assumptions as they confront the complexity and ambiguity of lived experience. In the process, the meek are empowered and the powerful are brought low.
Leadership traits from “12 Angry Men” (juror #8) Power & Influence: Influence others even when they lack formal authority Understand sources of power Find out how effective leaders create support and loyalty Understand why authority alone often won’t get the outcomes you expect Most Common Characteristics of Great Leaders Honesty ” truthful, has integrity, is trustworthy, has character Competence – palpTABLE, productive, effective, efficient, thorough, humility Forward-looking visionary, foresighted, concerned about the future, sense of direction Inspiring – uplifting, enthusiastic, energetic, humorous, cheerful, positive about the future Leaders excite followers with new options and ideas (vision) Leaders prefer solitary activities (even though they relate to people with great empathy) while managers prefer working with others (but relate more superficially, according to defined roles). Leaders have a sense of “self” based on mastery of their world which separates them from their environment and room other people. Types of Power Legitimate Power Referent Power Expert Power Information power Reward Power Coercive Power Leadership Styles Authoritative (autocratic) Participative (democratic) Delegating (laissez fairer) Teaching (technical) Coaching (cheerleaders) Charismatic Situational Charismatic Leadership Style and Information Power ”juror 8 The leader injects huge doses of enthusiasm into his or team, and is very energetic in driving others forward.
Inspires follower loyalty and creates an enthusiastic vision that others work to attain. Makes it difficult to find a replacement if the deader dies or leaves the organization. Credibility Believability The very foundation of a person’s source of power The most critical factor in being an authentic leader How juror 8 got it? 1. Being consistent in actions and statements. 2. Made decisions based on universally applied principles as opposed to personalities involved. 3. Followed through on promises. 4. Communicating openly and honestly. 5. Knew his job well. 6. Produced needed results. How juror #3 lost credibility 1. Inconsistency 2. Personality based decision-making.