Jury Opinion Shift In Twelve Angry Men

Analysis of Jury Opinion Shift in Twelve Angry Men

Twelve Angry Men is a courtroom drama film released in 1957 in which the defendant, an 18-year-old boy, is taken to court for allegedly killing his father. He is accused of having a motive for the murder, and with witnesses testifying, all the evidence is against him. The jury has to reach a unanimous opinion in the lounge to decide whether the boy is guilty or not, and if convicted, the teenager will be sentenced to death. The jury consisted of 12 people, all of whom were from different professions and did not know each other. The task of the jury is to discuss the credibility of the evidence and ultimately decide on the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and the film shows us the gradual

There were five votes taken during the jury's deliberations, and the order in which hands were raised on the first vote was interesting. Many people wavered and only raised their hands after seeing others raise their hands. I think this is one of the reasons why Juror 8 requested a secret ballot. The second vote was taken in a secret ballot to avoid the phenomenon of blind herding and to avoid seeing others raise their hands and following them themselves. At this point, except for juror number 8, no one explicitly questioned or objected to the "guilty" verdict. This avoids the situation where the number of jurors is so small that even if someone has doubts, they are afraid to express them. The second vote was two for not guilty and 10 for guilty. The third vote was four not guilty and eight guilty. The fourth vote resulted in a tie, with six for guilty and six for not guilty. The fifth vote resulted in nine for not guilty and three for guilty. Finally, they found a problem with another witness' testimony and managed to convince the three remaining jurors to reach a unanimous vote of not

When discussing whether the crippled old man could walk from the house to the door in 15 seconds, Juror 3 initially insisted that the old man's testimony must be accurate, but then said in the heat of the moment that the old man's words were not necessarily accurate. At this point, everyone realized that there were doubts about the crippled old man's words, as well as the inconsistencies in the views expressed by Juror 3, who was a bit too radical. After Juror 8 demonstrated the scene of the limping old man walking from the bedroom to the front door, he had a confrontation with Juror 3. Juror 3's impulsive "I'm going to kill you" statement, which had been their evidence of the defendant's guilt, was again overturned when the other jurors fell silent and looked at Juror 3. It was also here that the jurors began to suggest that people should not bring personal feelings to bear on the guilt or innocence of the