The 1957 movie, “Twelve Angry Men” directed by Sidney Lument, begins with an eighteen-year-old boy from the slums, who is on trial for the murder of his abusive father. A jury of twelve men are locked in a jury deliberation room to decide the fate of the young boy (Lument, 1957). Soon after the men gather in the deliberation room and the foreman suggests a vote, it is clear emotions rise and personalities differ. All of the jurors except one suggested the boy is guilty. While in the jury deliberation room trying to make decision of guilty or not guilty, many of the individuals displayed personal conflicts, personal judgments, bias, and even selfishness. Throughout history, a Jury is chosen on a random basis in order to give the defendant …show more content…
He was extremely opinionated and biased, loud-mouthed, intolerant and temperamental. Throughout the movie, he displayed numerous characteristics of over generalizing and stereotyping. Generalizing is the mental activity by which we draw broad conclusions from particular experiences (Ruggiero, 1975). He also displays poverty of aspect. Poverty of aspect refers to the limitation that comes from taking a narrow rather than a broad view on problems and issues (Ruggiero, 1975). Juror Three displayed many characteristics of a non-critical thinker to include, pretending he knew more than he did, he ignored limitations, and he assumed his views were error-free (Ruggiero, 1975). Throughout the entire deliberation process in which the Jurors were supposed to communicate and go over evidence, Juror Three had a one-track mind pattern of thinking. All of the evidence in which was presented to him was not good enough. Instead of Juror Three calmly sitting down and analyzing the evidence in front of him, he often stood up and paced the deliberation room yelling for no apparent reason. It seemed as if Juror Three wanted everyone to conform to his vote of guilty. Anyone who changed their vote from guilty to not guilty instantly became an enemy for Juror Three. Juror Three was the last Jury member to change his vote from guilty to not guilty Juror Three is the last to hold out for a guilty verdict. For a few moments after it becomes apparent that he stands alone, he sticks to his guns, saying there will be a hung jury, but he finally gives in to the pressure and votes not guilty. Juror Three pulls out his wallet to produce some facts of the case and a photograph of himself with his son falls out. He stares at it for a few moments and then tears it up and begins to sob. He recognizes that his desire to convict and punish the defendant is bound up with his feelings of anger and betrayal concerning his own son (Lument, 1957). Juror