In the film, 12 Angry Men, many of the jurors had task roles within the group. Juror 8 played the role of energizer. According to Zastrow (2015), the energizer, “Stimulates a higher quality of work from the group” (p. 84). Instead of letting all the men vote guilty, he made them question their decision. He brought up key points that made them dig deep into the case, and look at the situation from different perspectives. Juror 1 had the role of direction giver. He was in charge on making sure everyone stayed on task. At the beginning of the meeting, he developed the plan of how they were going to communicate with each other. Instead of all talking when they felt like it, he suggested they take turns and go in order by juror number. He also
…show more content…
When an individual is a part of a jury, one of the rules is they do not speak about the case outside of court. Though it wasn’t shown specifically in this film, this is a norm of a typical jury.
Another norm was smoking. During the meeting, many of the jurors lit up a cigarette while deciding what to do regarding the verdict. It was very normal in that day and age to smoke in doors; it was legal. Many of them would get up and smoke while looking out the window. There was a lot of personal bias among the jurors in the film, 12 Angry Men. One personal bias that came into play later was from Juror 5. In the beginning, Juror 5 voted the young boy was guilty. He was later accused of changing his vote because he too grew up in a slum. He was not the man who changed his vote, it was actually Juror 9. As the meeting progresses, he does change his vote, and later uses his knowledge of the slums to convince the other men the boy is innocent. Another bias revealed during the meeting was by juror 10. His was very obvious; he stated the young boy was guilty because of his race. He kept saying that his kind did those things, and that because of who he was he couldn’t help it, but needed to be punished. Eventually, the other members accused him of this and he changed his vote to not
When an individual is a part of a jury, one of the rules is they do not speak about the case outside of court. Though it wasn’t shown specifically in this film, this is a norm of a typical jury.
Another norm was smoking. During the meeting, many of the jurors lit up a cigarette while deciding what to do regarding the verdict. It was very normal in that day and age to smoke in doors; it was legal. Many of them would get up and smoke while looking out the window. There was a lot of personal bias among the jurors in the film, 12 Angry Men. One personal bias that came into play later was from Juror 5. In the beginning, Juror 5 voted the young boy was guilty. He was later accused of changing his vote because he too grew up in a slum. He was not the man who changed his vote, it was actually Juror 9. As the meeting progresses, he does change his vote, and later uses his knowledge of the slums to convince the other men the boy is innocent. Another bias revealed during the meeting was by juror 10. His was very obvious; he stated the young boy was guilty because of his race. He kept saying that his kind did those things, and that because of who he was he couldn’t help it, but needed to be punished. Eventually, the other members accused him of this and he changed his vote to not