Essay On Groupthink In 12 Angry Men

As a trial concludes amongst a New York City courthouse in 12 Angry Men, twelve court-appointed jurors are sent to deliberate the life of an inner-city teen. If found guilty for murder in the first degree, the eighteen-year-old defendant faces a mandatory death sentence. Given the harsh circumstances of the trial, the jurors must decide a unanimous verdict of guilt or innocence (Fonda & Lumet). In the attempt to reach a united decision, the dozen is forced into argumentation. With the heat of summer and debate surrounding the jury room, the men’s attitudes and prejudices begin to toughen. The concept of groupthink severely influences the jury to a deadly conclusion—guilty of capital murder. However, when the eighth juror proposes an alternative idea - the mere possibility of innocence, cooperative argumentation steers the group to a rational decision (Fonda & Lumet). When a group forgoes the acts of analysis and evaluation in order to ensure the harmony and consistency of a group, the phenomenon of groupthink

When one brave juror voted 'not guilty' at the beginning of deliberations, he set the foundation for cooperative argumentation (Fonda & Lumet). The eighth juror’s willingness to stand alone was essential in adopting a cooperative nature. To be a minority is never easy. In fact, when an individual stands alone, he or she is opposing the human nature to be liked and accepted. However, through persistent and persuasive appeals, the eighth juror’s sparks the dialogue needed for cooperative argumentation. In order to establish the unanimous verdict needed by the court, the jury must engage in discussion. Offering evidence and logical reasoning and challenging the tenets of groupthink, the architect-turned-leader forces the men to reconsider the questionable foundation and eyewitness testimony of the case (Fonda &