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
Furthermore, when the picture of juror 3’s family falls out of his wallet and after he angrily rants to the men, he rips up the picture and begins to weep. When this is done it becomes obvious to the men how the difference in lifestyles affected all the entire day that they had endured. Furthermore, in seeing juror 3 release himself of his personal issues and the malaise he has towards his own family, the methods of groupthink are used and dismissed after each of the men decide their votes with their heart, and come to the conclusion presenting the young boy to be
Davis, the first juror to vote not guilty, ignored his emotional attachment to the first-degree murder case and thought purely around the evidence the boy and the witnesses provided to the court. The other jurors said, “eleven men and you think he’s guilty, nobody has to think about it twice except you.” They said this in accordance to system 1 and original response to the stories told in the court. Otherwise, not once did Mr. Davis refer to system 1 through laziness. Mr. Davis spent the entirety of that hot day in a room with eleven other men, spending every second he had on convincing them of the potential error that could have been made in convicting the young boy.
Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.
The late 19th century was a monumental era for the city of Paris. As the city kept growing and increasing in popularity around the globe, the city itself was being modernized from its dated medieval layout. These modernizations had a direct impact on the culture of the city, the lifestyles of its inhabitants, and the prominence of the city across the world. Paris’ inhabitants were as social as ever, and often enjoyed themselves at cafés and bars. This modernization acted as a perfect catalyst to support the surging wave of capitalism across Western Europe.
Feminist criminology has been around since the late 1960's and started out centered on speculations brought upon traditional theories of crime. Most traditional theories didn't necessarily ignore women in the criminal justice system yet they generalized crime and what causes a person to turn to crime so that women who commit crimes are overlooked by the generalization. Not only are the numbers skewed when you look at gender in criminal justice offenders but there is also a certain bias in the criminal justice systems workers. In the movie Vera Drake there is a clear example of this when the investigator and the officer come into the movie. While watching you can easily assume that the female officer is treated and thought of much differently
(Lee Pg.296). This means that women are known as “delicate” and that they need to be protected from doing stressful jobs such as being on a jury. Maybe they just don 't want women
This process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background. . Another interesting aspect of this 1957 film is the “reverse prejudice” portrayed by juror
The 1996 film Fargo by the Joel and Ethan Coen captivates the rare heroics of a pregnant female officer from Brainerd, Minnesota. The film’s depiction of female heroics is a proponent for empowering women in the film industry. We are always accustomed to seeing men as the primary focus and center of a film and women as the impotent secondary character. Films today should start portraying women as the strong primary character and, a character that’s inspires women to make difference like Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand) did. Film is a societal changing platform and The Coen brothers use that to bring some parity in our male dominant society.
Throughout the play 12 Angry Men, jurors use reasonable doubt; previous knowledge or opinion of a topic, to influence the opinions of other jurors. Personal insight used by Juror eight, juror 9, Juror 5, Juror 8, and Juror 2 influence other jurors by changing their opinions and their reasoning behind that vote. For Instance, Juror eight exhibits how the old man 's testimony is not valid. He demonstrates the old man walking from his bedroom, down the hall, and down the steps, just in time to witness the boy stab his father.
It is a natural human instinct to want to be acknowledge by your peers, yet it is also important to be a critical thinker. Irving Janis in 1972 created the term groupthink. He believed groupthink occurs inside a group of similar people that want to keep from being different, resulting in incoherent decision-making. The 1957 film "12 Angry Men," uses groupthink, which influenced the verdict vote in the case of a teenager accused of murdering his father. The purpose of this essay is to examine groupthink and to represent Dr. Irving Janis’ symptoms of groupthink in the film.
‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.
Gender should not depend on how people get treated differently from the opposite gender. If someone commits a crime regardless of their gender, they both should have to face the consequences regarding the crime they committed. A male should not be treated different than a female after committing a crime just because he is male and visa versa. Gender discrepancies play a role in everything in our world today. Whether it be in crime, sports, school, or even careers, males are typically punished much harder than females, and also get the most credit when it comes to sports, school, and their careers compared to females who excel in the exact same thing males do, even if the females are better than the males in any of those fields.
The movie “Twelve Angry Men” illustrates lots of social psychology theories. This stretched and attractive film, characterize a group of jurors who have to decide the innocence or guiltiness of an accused murder. They are simply deliberating the destiny of a Puerto Rican teenaged boy accused of murdering his father. Initially, as the film begins, except the juror Davis (Henry Fonda), all other jurors vote guilty. Progressively, the jurors begin trying to compromise on a point that everybody agree because the decision of the jury has to be unanimous.
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
