12_Angry_Men

The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18 year old boy for the first degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony which was heard in court. The group went through the common stages of group development as presented in the text; forming, storming, norming, and performing (Robbins, & Judge, 2010) while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved. After a first vote, juror 8 is the only individual who would like to explore if there is a reasonable doubt in this case. The remainder of the jurors have expressed indifference and have conformed to the group belief that the boy is guilty without further discussion. They are irritable secondary to the environmental conditions, and they are eager to return to their personal responsibilities. In spite of the aggressive atmosphere caused by Juror 8’s decision he uses reason to try to delve deeper into the case and testimony. His use of reason forces the rest of the group, who have fallen victim to groupthink, to investigate other facts and points of view that were not presented in the courtroom. He has a sympathetic personality, and uses another method of appealing to higher values within the group to attempt to influence the members. The use of higher values and reason allows for more open discussion amongst the group and for the discovery of the personal biases and how the personal experiences of each juror has lead them to quickly decide on the boys guilt. Juror 8 maintains a calm, professional rapport with the group and through his methods is able to emerge as the natural leader and overshadow the foreman who is agitated when order cannot be kept. Juror 8 is an effective leader because he is not taking a side in early deliberation; he is just stating that he doesn’t know whether or not the boy is guilty and that he thinks at least some time should be spent before deciding on the death penalty for the accused. Juror 3 at the same time is fighting for control and influence over the group by use of his assertiveness. He has a forceful personality and is temperamental throughout the discussion and as jurors switch their decisions from guilty to not guilty. It is not surprising that he is the last to concede to the vote. The order in which the jurors change their vote was very reflective of their personalities and biases. Juror 9 joins juror 8 using coalition building, the eldest of the group also soft spoken and calm relates well to juror 8 and believes it’s worth the time to hear more. Juror 5 is the next member to change his vote to not guilty. He is convinced by the reasoning used by juror 8 and due to his insecurities and not wanting to be associated with the boy being that they had come from similar background. Jurors 2, 6, and 11 soon follow suit, they are all followers by personality and I believe they are seeking acceptance from the leader of the group. Jurors 1, 7, and 12 are also convinced as juror 8 continues to present questions that were not addressed during the cross examination. Jurors 7 & 12 lacked their own opinions in the case throughout the film being more focused on speaking about work, or bantering about nonsense. Jurors 4 & 10 are the second to last to be swayed and conform to the ideas of the group. Juror 4 is a methodical man and recreates a believable case stating the facts, however once he is faced with a doubt that he can relate to he quickly changes his vote, as dose juror 10 as the others call him out on his prejudice behavior and he loses what he believed to be his assertive credibility. Juror 8 proves to be the most effective leader because he is capable of overcoming the social prejudices and listen fairly, while entertaining all of the group’s opinions without attacking the individual who presented them. He fully understands the group’s goal which is to prove without reasonable doubt that this boy is guilty of a crime. He does not use any of the negative techniques such as assertiveness or bargaining to coerce members to join him, he sticks to his constructive and calm approach. Of course in this day and age the jury would consist of a more diverse group, but would also face difficulties as they move through group processes.