Movie Reaction Paper 1

Movie Reaction Paper 12 Angry Men The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government opens the movie, entitled 12 Angry Men; it is one of George Washingtons famous quotes which is engraved into the foundation of the justice system of the United States of America both literally and figuratively (Lumet &Rose, 1957). The case of this movie is a murder; an 18 year old boy is alleged to have killed is father. The facts of the case provide two eye witnesses testimony which places the young boy in the vicinity of when the act was infact committed. The father sustained a stab wound to the chest, which was four (4) inches deep by a switchblade pocket knife. After the alternate jurors were dismissed the deliberation of a guilty or not guilty verdict began in the jury room. The twelve (12) jurors were men of various ages and occupations. The preliminary vote ruled 11 to 1 in favour of the guilty verdict. With one man to convince the jury set out to return a verdict as quickly possible to the judge. After several heated exchanges, and approximately six (6) to eight (8) voting sessions, the jury produced the verdict of not guilty. Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006) defines group polarization as the tendency for group discussions to strengthen the initial leanings of the members in a group (p.409). Simply, group polarization suggests the same concept as a magnet, where the iron fillings would be attracted to the side which most attracts them. Also, in relation to the movie, 12 Angry Men, group polarization is expected to be present in a jury room. This indicates that the jury would lean predominantly toward either verdict (guilty or not guilty) before actual discussions seek to highlight otherwise, in the case of Juror no. 8 in the movie; whom honestly did not know whether or not the boy was guilty (p.412).

Movie Reaction Paper 2

In Lumet & Rose (1957) the jurors preliminary verdict voting displayed a total of eleven (11) to one (1), where the guilty verdict paved the way for the discussions to begin. After a series of loud and angry outbursts and very powerful manipulation of the evidence, one man is able to eventually make the other eleven (11) jurors see the non guilty verdict as possible enough cause for the 18 year old boy to be sentenced to death. The preliminary choice by the jurors for the guilty verdict may have been as a result of group think as well as it may not have any part to do with group think. According to Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006), group think is a way of thinking within a decision making groups when pressure to agree leads to inadequate appraisal of options and poor decisions (p.404). To further understand group think, it may be generally classified as a situation in a group which results in bad decisions because of pressure to agree. In the movie according to Lumet & Rose (1957) the preliminary vote was taken directly after the jurors came in from the court room. However, they first had the opportunity to converse with each other and get acquainted. The case was loosely spoken off amongst themselves, suggesting that the boy should be found guilty at once. This influence from the other jurors provides slight pressure by believing that the boy was guilty without assessing the situational evidence provided to their disposal. Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006) also highlights that discussions prior to the final verdict decision usually predicts the outcome because of the content of the discussions entail (p.412). According to Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006) deindividuation can be defined as a psychological state in which people loose their sense of personal identity and feel immersed in a group (p.399). Another author; Silke (2003) agrees but defines deindividuation as a psychological state in which inner restraints are lost when individuals are not seen or paid

Movie Reaction Paper 3

attention to as individuals (p.493). In the movie, the twelve men were not called by name; instead they sat in order of juror numbers one (1) through twelve (12). This process was conducted by the foreman, it left no room for introduction and it kept everything as formal as possible, no names were used also. So it could be clearly seen that the jurors were devoid of a common form of identification. Silke (2003) goes on to highlight that; anonymity, in particular, has been identified as one of the key causes of deindividuation. This statement supports the fact that by calling each juror by their number created a sense of anonymity as suggested above. The article goes on further to emphasize that when an individual comes to believe themselves as anonymous or their identity unknown amongst group members they are more likely to behave in an aggressive and punitive manner (Silke 2003, p.493). In relation to 12 Angry Men, the jurors did exchange heated conversations throughout the movie while a verdict was trying to be deduced. With the jury being a group in the minority, theorists have developed two types of thinking in such groups; divergent thinking and convergent thinking. As defined in Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006), convergent thinking is where the individuals of a group approach problems with a standard or typical outlook (p.413). The jurors at the beginning had a preliminary vote, with eleven (11) of them agreeing on guilty. These eleven (11) men approached the murder case with no open-mindedness, believing that the courts evidence was sufficient and accurate enough to warrant the death by electric chair to the 18 year old boy (Lumet & Rose, 1957). The one (1) juror who stood alone in his not guilty ruling before the deliberations begun expressed the other type of minority group thinking; divergent thinking. Breckler, Olson &

Movie Reaction Paper 4

Wiggins (2006) defines divergent thinking as someone possessing innovative and creative thoughts which produce alternate approaches to problems. Juror no. 8 was the one (1) juror that stood alone. He looked at the murder case the in a fresh light, which created several other jurors to join him in choosing the verdict of not guilty by manipulating the evidence over and over until what actually could of happened did, and thus producing a not guilty verdict (Lumet & Rose, 1957). Where leadership is concerned, the Juror who was nominated by the court was the foreman and as such he was juror no. 1. This juror initially started out at the formal leadership position. However, Juror no. 3, who was very loud mouthed and quick tempered acted as though there was no formal leader, and felt as if he should have taken over. Because of juror no. 8s persistence he had the greatest impact upon the jurors and hence he emerged a leader within the movie because of his influence on the deliberations (Lumet & Rose, 1957). These aforementioned types of leaders are highlighted in answering the question; how is a leader identified or defined. Breckler suggested three (3) ways; each way representing the jurors no. 1, 3 and 8 respectively (p.415). The functions performed by the leaders varied in the movie. According to Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006), the functions of leaders are divided into two groupings; the task achievement function and the group maintenance function. The task achievement function was an attribute that juror no. 8 possessed. He was most effective in the productivity of jury by directing them towards the goal of getting a suitable judgment. Juror no. 1 whom was the foreman of the jury falls under the second grouping; group maintenance function. He focused on keeping the order in the jury room, by scheduling votes at the opportune time and keeping the

Movie Reaction Paper 5

heated discussions between jurors under control before they turned physical (Lumet & Rose, 1957). There are two types of leaders in relation to the groupings; the task leader and the socioemotional leader. Juror no. 1 or the foreman falls under the socioemotional leader more likely because he is the individual that dealt more with the morale of the group by keeping the order and some semblance of peace. The juror no. 8 would fall under the task leader because of his taking charge over getting the jury to be productive in giving a verdict (p.415). In Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006) Juror no. 8 was truly an effective leader because he was highly productive when it came to manipulating the evidence to get the jurors to understand his viewpoint, having done such the jurors changed their verdicts having apparently being satisfied with the explanation of the evidence and so on. Also, juror no. 8 had the largest impact on the jurors since the beginning when he said that he is not sure whether the boy was guilty or not. The other jurors who joined his verdict of not guilty were obviously pleased as to the effectiveness of how juror no. 8 made refuted the testimonies made, which were not at all possible (p.416-417). Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006) defined social loafing as the reduction of effort that people often exhibit when working in a group where individual contributions are unidentifiable. The other jurors were being productive in trying to deduce a verdict, there were two instances where members of the jury did not show any avid interest in the case. First there was juror no. 12 who sat next to the watch maker; he works at an advertising agency. He was working on a doodle of a cereal box rather than putting input into the animated discussions. Another instance

Movie Reaction Paper 6

was when juror no. 8 began explaining his perspective on the case and two jurors; no. 10 and no. 3 were playing a game of tic-tac-toe to across the table (Lumet & Rose 1957). Social facilitation according to Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006) is the effect of the presence of other people on individual performance. The juror who was affected by this would have been juror who sat next to the accountant, juror no. 5. He appeared to be uncomfortable at first because of his place of growing up. He did not feel inclined to speak initially, but he eventually was able to adjust (Lumet & Rose 1957). Basically, this movie was filled with the proof that in any situation, facts can be manipulated to show all angles of a problematic situation and it is up to more than one individual to make a competent decision. The altercation between juror no. 8 and juror no. 3 involving the latter man being called a self appointed public avenger displayed how his approach to the case had been decided from the get go, because of his personal issues he was refusing to assess the situation any differently than the lesson which he wanted to teach his own 22 year old son. The validity of eyewitness testimony was brought up several times as the jury went through a series of prodding each and every testimony from the old man and from the lady, both of which turned out not to match. Eye witness testimony should not be the basis of giving a judgment on a case because it is not something that is not always accurate, due to the fact that human memory is fallible (Breckler, Olson & Wiggins 2006, p.83). Finally, a very disturbing event in the movie involved stereotyping the area in which the boy lives as a slum people and slums and those people are dangerous and kill anyone for no reason at all, which lead to prejudice; where juror no. 10 expressed his dislike for those types of people, next was discrimination, where he wished that the jurors could select the guilty verdict so

Movie Reaction Paper 7

that the boy could die, because that is what people like them should do. Then to sum it all up juror no. 8 says only one thing; prejudice always obscures the truth. In the end, the sensible decision was made, but it all depends on whether or not people would stand up to the law, and look at things with different perspectives.

Movie Reaction Paper 8

References Breckler, S.J., Olson, J.M., & Wiggins, E.C. (2006). Social psychology alive. CA, United States: ThomsonWadsworth. Lumet, S. (Director). & Rose, R. (Writer). (1957). 12 Angry Men [Motion picture]. Sweden: Orion-Nova Productions. Silke, A. (2003). Deindividuation, anonymity, and violence: Findings from Northern Ireland. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143(3), 493-499.