Set in New York, 12 Angry Men follows twelve jurors as they decide whether or not a young 18-year-old Hispanic boy is guilty for stabbing his father in the chest. In a rather small room, the jurors must reach a unanimous decision, and if there is ‘reasonable doubt,’ the young boy will be freed. In one of the initial scenes, a vote is facilitated where 11 jurors find him guilty, and one juror, juror 8 votes that he is not guilty. He expresses to the group that a discussion needs to be made prior to sending a young boy to the death penalty. There is a lack of evidence which supports why the young 18-year-old boy stabbed his father and in turn leaves some of the minds of the jurors in a place where they are unable to convict within moral certainty.
…show more content…
In one scene, a juror expresses that the “slums are a breeding ground for menaces to society,” relating it to the 18-year-old boy and a man on the jury is from the slums who consequently becomes offended. Some jurors proceed to calling him “sensitive,” lacking empathy or understanding. Some members of the group lacked the skills needed to successfully involve themselves in “positive interpersonal communication...stimulating social graces that make [it] easy to get along with others effectively (Mack, 2016).” There are disagreements but the jurors are able to communicate with one another what it is, or why they believe their decision for the verdict is valid. The jurors continue to cooperate under the facilitation of the foreman who acts as objectively as possible. The overall goal is to reach a unanimous vote whether disagreements arise or …show more content…
Members of the jury began to get agitated and upset. Members are frustrated because a unanimous vote must be made and the changes in votes causes more confusion. A juror attacks the man who grew up in the slums as he accuses him of changing his vote, and finds out it was another juror who is beginning to understand and listen to the architect. There is an obvious expressed struggle as the architect really challenges and suggests that the “information should be just that accurate if we’re going to send him to the chair.” In my opinion, most of the conflict was constructive as the thoughts of the group began to change. Another person changes their vote as the credibility of the information shared is believed. A juror is convinced that the young boy is guilty, adnt architect is pressed to believe that he wants him dead for his own ‘personal vengeance.’ His true colors show and the group is rather opposed to his reasonings given he is unwilling to change what he thinks no matter what information is presented. The argument is diffused and the continue to
In one scene, a juror expresses that the “slums are a breeding ground for menaces to society,” relating it to the 18-year-old boy and a man on the jury is from the slums who consequently becomes offended. Some jurors proceed to calling him “sensitive,” lacking empathy or understanding. Some members of the group lacked the skills needed to successfully involve themselves in “positive interpersonal communication...stimulating social graces that make [it] easy to get along with others effectively (Mack, 2016).” There are disagreements but the jurors are able to communicate with one another what it is, or why they believe their decision for the verdict is valid. The jurors continue to cooperate under the facilitation of the foreman who acts as objectively as possible. The overall goal is to reach a unanimous vote whether disagreements arise or …show more content…
Members of the jury began to get agitated and upset. Members are frustrated because a unanimous vote must be made and the changes in votes causes more confusion. A juror attacks the man who grew up in the slums as he accuses him of changing his vote, and finds out it was another juror who is beginning to understand and listen to the architect. There is an obvious expressed struggle as the architect really challenges and suggests that the “information should be just that accurate if we’re going to send him to the chair.” In my opinion, most of the conflict was constructive as the thoughts of the group began to change. Another person changes their vote as the credibility of the information shared is believed. A juror is convinced that the young boy is guilty, adnt architect is pressed to believe that he wants him dead for his own ‘personal vengeance.’ His true colors show and the group is rather opposed to his reasonings given he is unwilling to change what he thinks no matter what information is presented. The argument is diffused and the continue to