Foreman (Juror 1): He is an assistant football coach at a High School. Elected as the foreman of the jury, he has the responsibility to keep the jury process organized. Although he is not particularly bright, he is dogged. Initially, he struggled to keep up with his authority. Eventually, he managed to weight to his authority as the foreman as well as his opinions. Juror 2: He is an introvert who works as a bank clerk. Meek and high in agreeableness, he cannot hold an opinion of his own and adopts the opinion of the last person who has spoken. He seemed happy when he managed to help during the timing of recreating the ‘old man walking’ scene. Juror 3: He is an impulsive, humourless and extremely opinionated character whose own conflict with his own son caused him to take the case personally. Being a Controller (intuitor/judger temperament) with low emotional stability and high in competitiveness, he displayed his ‘bull’ tendency when other Jurors do not share the same opinions as him.This can be seen during the many times in the movie where he happens to have a conflict with Juror 8 over the difference in their view. This relationship of theirs is denoted by a zigzag line in the sociogram. His Type A personality clashes with majority of the Jurors as he uses …show more content…
He displays the tendency of an introverted Pragmatist with the Thinker preferences. Therefore, it takes him very long and requires several opinions laid out by other Jurors to change his mind from ‘guilty’ to ‘not guilty’. At the same time, he was firm and unafraid to stand up for himself once he changed his vote. He is sympathetic towards the boy as he grew up in the slum himself which caused him to disagree with Juror 3 numerous time. Therefore, his own upbringing in the slum makes him more knowledgeable about how the boy could have handled the switchblades and also the traits of living in the slum in
He has no sympathy and only cares about the evidence of the case. On the website Study.com i found “When Juror Eight feels sorry for the teenage defendant, who is accused of murdering his father, because of the bad lot this boy got in life, Juror Four starts fixing his hair as he is uninterested in anything except evidence. He then says, 'We 're not here to go into the reasons why slums are breeding grounds for criminals; they are. I know it. So do you.
As for Juror 3, he prefers loud, yelling, and calling people out and telling them they are wrong. This is why Juror 3 is represented with a lightning bolt. On the outside, he is obviously quick striking, hot, and loud. He can obviously be seen in the film yelling and attacking every character. On the other hand, Juror 8 is more tranquil, and cool, and will let anyone speak.
As the play went on, Juror Eight started proving how the boy was innocent. In the end Juror Eight changed all the other juror’s minds, except for Juror Three’s. Juror Three ended up changing his vote, not because they changed his mind but because he gave into peer pressure. He still had his prejudice influenced decision, he only gave in because he didn't want it to be a hung jury. Another example, from the same play, is Juror Eight.
He seems to me to be the leader of all the guilty votes. Him and Juror number ten. Both are very upset. I think the Leadership styles that were used here include Leader-as-Technician Juror number eight is very analytical and is an Architect.
The way we see and understand things may not be the same for everyone. Personally, I feel like I come across as a very diffident person, however, I am told otherwise-I am a strong, confident person. Similarly, it can be observed in the movie, that Juror 3 was determined that the boy was guilty. Juror 3 implied evidence that was already established whereas Juror 8 provided logic in context with the evidence supplied. Juror 3 abominates the thought of a child killing his own father, “Well 18 is old enough.
The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar
Similarly, Juror Five has a perspective on the case, only it is parallel to the Third Juror, he sates, “I’ve lived in a slum all my life. I nurse that trash in Harlem Hospital six nights a week. I used to play in a backyard that was filled with garbage. Maybe it still smells on me” (Rose 18). By saying this, the third Juror admits that there is more to the kid accused, after all, he grew up in a very similar situation.
Juror 3 was intimidating the other jurors, trying to convince them to stick with the guilty verdict. Juror 2 was guilty of self-censorship agreeing with the rest of the group to influence his decisions. The whole group began with the illusion of unanimity. According to Janis illusion of unanimity is, “the majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.” (Psysr.org,
Leadership and roles are depicted throughout the whole movie by many different jurors. The designated leader of the jury group was Juror #1. Juror #1 was when they first entered into the room but Juror #8 took the emergent role when he declined to agree with a guilty verdict. His rejection to agree in a guilty verdict was crucial since he voiced his uncertainty to the evidence at a early stage.
A group of juror comprising of 12 men from diverse backgrounds began their early deliberations with 11 of ‘guilty’ and 1 of ‘not guilty’ verdicts. Juror 8 portrayed himself as a charismatic and high self-confident architect. Initially, Juror 1 who played the foreman positioned himself as self-appointed leader of the team in which has led his authority to be challenged as his leadership style lacked in drive and weak. In the contrary, Juror 8 is seen as the emergent leader considering his openness to probing conversations while remaining calm. Implying this openness to the present, it has become crucial that a good decision relies on knowledge, experience, thorough analysis and most importantly critical thinking.
Juror 8 is a natural leader, and one by one he persuades the other jurors to accept his arguments through persistence, supposing the evidence and suggesting that there are possible explanations to the witness stories and evidence given for the murder case. Rose uses Juror 8 to exemplify that there are many who take the aspects of justice seriously and can decide on fair verdicts. He says that he cannot “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”, demonstrating the ethical qualities that some of humanity possesses. He is also able to assert the views of intolerance and also comprehends that “prejudice obscures the truth”.
My favorite character in the movie was juror 12 for many reasons in which he never went back on what be believed in, he always followed through with what he said and what he thought. The first reason was that he felt as if the boy was not guilty because he had many good reasons behind that. The juror felt as if many of the points the other juror’s were not valid at all as if most of the stuff didn’t add up at all. Juror 12 never went back on his word even when they voted multiple times even when they had more and more evidence. Mostly all points that the 12th juror was giving were all valid and he had so much faith in what he felt that was right.
Jury 3 was a major contributor to the plot of the story, and constantly added outrage. He regularly brought unnecessary remarks and accusations to the jury room. His remarks and comments usually didn 't pursued the other 11 jury’s, but the criticism sure made things more hectic and frustrating. Jury 3 was for sure the antagonist in the story, with out him there wouldn 't of been
Davis, Juror Eight, is the main character, protagonist, and was responsible for the boy's life in this film. He is an architect who was the first to vote "not guilty". Voting that way takes a lot of courage, because all the men just want to get out of there and not
Juror 3 vs Juror 8: In Comparison and Contrast Juror 3, played by Lee J. Cobb and Juror 8, played by Henry Fonda, are both men of business, the former a literal businessman and the latter an architect, respectively, but differ in their personalities and sympathies that go along with them. Juror 3 and Juror 8 both share careers that deal either fully in business, or partially in business. Juror 3 is a businessman, as well as a father, as mentioned during his anecdote of his embarrassment after witnessing his nine year-old son run away from a fight, ending the story with his son punching him in the jaw at the age of 16. Juror 8 is an architect by trade, and must deal with some form of business during the architectural process. Since both