Parth Patel AP Psychology 12 Angry Men

April 15, 2013 Block 7/8

In the film, 12 Angry Men, a group of jurors were discussing whether a particular murder case was to be found guilty or innocent. In the beginning, the jurors expressed their opinion by conducting a preliminary vote to see where everyone stands and it results were that everyone, but one juror, voted for the case to be guilty. The law for all court cases is to have all of the jurors agree on only one side, guilty or not guilty. When seeing that the one juror voted not guilty aside from everyone else, the other jurors decided to discuss and convince him that the case is guilty. Throughout the film, as the discussion preceded, many social and group factors, such as group polarization, social facilitation, social loafing, groupthink, etc., are exemplified. Also, as tensions between the jurors increase, there is an interesting plot twist at the end. As the twelve jurors were handed the responsibility of dealing with a murder case, a preliminary vote was taken upon. Surprisingly enough, as mentioned in the last paragraph, all but one voted guilty. Noticing that the one juror, also known as the reasonable juror, voted not guilty, the other jurors tried to convince him that the case was guilty. Throughout the discussion, however, the reasonable juror carefully analyzed each and every part of the case and brought out critical points that were outstanding compared to the other jurors reasons. The reasonable juror more so convinced the other jurors that the case was not guilty. Mainly, throughout the film, group polarization was extensively exemplified. For example, in the trial, a woman, who was supposed to be wearing her eye glasses during the trial, testified that she was sleeping on a train and as it passed by the house window, she woke up and was able to spot the murder. The reasonable juror and another juror, who happened to wear eye glasses as well, were discussing this situation. The reasonable juror decided to ask the other juror if he wore his eye glasses when going to sleep. The other juror replied that he doesnt. His response had the reasonable juror

Parth Patel AP Psychology

April 15, 2013 Block 7/8

analyzing the situation again and he stated that the woman would not have been able to see the murder because she wouldnt have gotten out of bed and wear her glasses in time. This statement struck the other jurors mind and was then completely convinced that the case is not guilty. Throughout the trial, many eyewitness testimonies were heard, providing evidence to the murder case. The jurors have mentioned and pondered upon the evidence, but however, they were not able to analyze it as well as the reasonable juror. For example, one eyewitness testimony from an old man with a limping left foot said that he heard the murderer say Ill kill you! and then heard a body drop. As soon as the body dropped, in a matter of 15 seconds, he quickly shuffled himself to the door and saw the boy run down the stairs. The reasonable juror analyzed this and realized that the train with the woman, which was mentioned in the last paragraph, would have been passing by at the same time and when a train passes by, the sound is very loud, and therefore, the old man wouldnt have been able to hear the murderer say, Ill kill you! He also concluded that there is no possible way where the old man would get up from his bed and walk to the door with his limping left foot all in 15 seconds. The reasonable juror even reenacted the situation and ended up with 41 seconds. Another eyewitness testimony stated that the murderer went to buy a knife at a shop after having a dispute with his father. The shop owner said that it was a one of a kind knife and that he had never seen it before. The reasonable juror contemplated upon this testimony and had an interesting thought that another person could have murdered the father with the same exact knife. The other jurors immediately denied the reasonable jurors claim because of the fact that it was a one of a kind knife. The reasonable juror then decided to examine the evidence and the other jurors brought him the knife. The other jurors were completely adamant with their claim, but however, when the knife was brought, the reasonable juror brought out an identical knife for

Parth Patel AP Psychology

April 15, 2013 Block 7/8

which he bought from a shop the other night. The other jurors were in complete shock and were curious about where the reasonable juror got the knife. Once the reasonable juror explained his evidence, many of the other jurors decided to change their votes. Given the responsibility of handling a murder case, the 12 jurors are to decide whether the case is guilty or not guilty. As mentioned many times, the preliminary vote was all guilty expect for one person. That one person is to be known as the reasonable juror due to the fact that he carefully analyzes the case and logically refutes the other jurors claims. Throughout the film, the reasonable juror seeks to discuss and persuade the other jurors to conform to his decision. But however, the other jurors seemed to have different thoughts at that time. They wished to quickly decide on a proper solution to the case and continue with their normal daily lives. The jurors were also at risk of groupthink because as one member of the group thinks of one solution, the other jurors would think of the same solution without carefully analyzing it. Many of the other jurors were trying to end the case fairly quickly by taking irrational actions and overestimating their position. The reasonable was more the analyzer or evaluator of the case. Due to his effort, he was able to persuade the other jurors in committing with the reasonable decision. Considering the fact that the murderer is only 18 years of age, lives in a slum, and has a previous criminal background, the other jurors devised, without thinking, that the murderer is most definitely guilty. But however, the reasonable juror felt that the murderer has suffered much throughout his life and his life should not be at risk. The fact that he was from a slum and had a previous criminal background made the other jurors believe that this person was to be forever known as a public menace. Their belief was an act of prejudice due to his cultural background. The reasonable juror viewed the case in a different perspective, focusing on only the eyewitness

Parth Patel AP Psychology

April 15, 2013 Block 7/8

testimonies and analyzing the complete details. Therefore, even if one is affiliated with a slum or a gang, one should not be considered a threat to the society. One must find out the details before making certain assumptions. 12 Angry Men is a film which depicts the use of group polarization, social facilitation, social loafing, conformity and persuasion, groupthink, etc. As a murder case was on trial, the 12 jurors were given the responsibility of handling and deciding on reasonable solution to the case. Throughout the film, however, tensions arose as the reasonable juror refuted the other jurors claims in a way to gradually persuade the other jurors to conform to his decision. Mainly, as the discussion proceeded, the reasonable juror carefully examined and analyzed each and every part of the case and clearly exemplified many instances of conformity, dealing with issues of prejudice, and cognitive heuristics.