12 angry men

A detailed Summary of 12 angry men

Although the 1957 movie "Twelve Angry Men" was not written for this purpose, it serves as an excellent portrayal of small group development. The author, Reginald Rose, had written it after his own personal experience serving as a juror. In "Twelve Angry Men" a young man stands accused of stabbing his own father to death. The jurors must unanimously decide the defendant's guilt or innocence. If found guilty, the accused will be put to death in the electric chair. To eleven of the jurors this is an open and shut case, but one lone juror stands against them to prove there is reasonable doubt.

As the movie unfolds, you begin to see several group roles emerge. Initially, the jury foreman is filling the role of leader. He has been chosen to tabulate votes, call for evidence, and fulfill other organizational duties during deliberations. Over time, his leadership over the group begins to erode. At the onset, he appears to be a little hesitant, as if not quite sure how to proceed. He makes suggestions and looks for approval from the others. He contributes little to the discussion. As

There are many instances where jurors made attempts to correct faulty thinking. To illustrate, the old man mentions how the woman on the stand had little marks on her nose. Since they probably came from glasses, he was bringing attention to the fact that her eyesight was questionable. She probably didn't have her glasses on in bed, so how was she able to identify the boy? Jack Klugman's character demonstrates how the boy would have used the switchblade, and why the stab wound didn't match. The watchmaker says, "On the surface the boy looks guilty, but maybe if we go deeper..." Specifically, he questions why the boy would return to the apartment three hours after the killing. Henry Fonda's character challenges the stockbroker's assumption that the boy should have remembered details about that night. He asks the stockbroker for details about his own activities over the last few days and he is unable to remember everything. Fonda also states, "everybody sounded so positive...nothing is that positive. Suppose the witnesses are wrong? They're the entire case for the prosecution!" Fonda actually demonstrates that the man downstairs would not have been able to make it to his door in time to see the defendant. Several jurors fought the assumption that all kids from the slums were criminals. For instance, when the man with the cold called them "born liars", the old man retorts, "only an ignorant man can believe that." Later he says, "I don't think the kind of boy he is has anything to do with it. The facts are supposed to determine the case."

Most of the jurors met these requirements. This would include Henry Fonda's character, the foreman, the stockbroker, the timid man, Jack Klugman's character, the watchmaker, the old man, and the working man. They all seemed committed to their decision. Although there were interruptions, everyone eventually got a chance to say what they wanted to say. They were satisfied that the process, though not an enjoyable one, was thorough enough to make a well-informed decision.

When the jurors first walk into the room, they begin to discuss the case. It becomes clear that many have already decided to vote guilty. This is confirmed when they take an initial vote and there is only one vote for not guilty. They decide to go around the table and let everyone explain their reasoning. It is at this point that you begin to see that some of their inferences are not necessarily reasonable.

3. Members are satisfied with the group decision.

Not everyone exhibited a commitment to the group's decision. The most obvious example of this is the baseball fan. After insisting throughout deliberations that the boy was guilty, he suddenly changes his mind and votes not guilty. The watchmaker agrees with his vote but he challenges it, saying, "it would be wrong to change your vote just because you have had enough". When he demands an explanation the baseball fan is completely unable to give even a single reason. All he can say is, "I just think he's not guilty". It is apparent that he was tired of being there and changed his vote just so it would end sooner. The advertising executive's vote is also questionable because he changed it three times. His decision seemed to be based on whoever spoke last. We aren't really clear on whether the angry man really believed in his vote of not guilty. The movie doesn't give enough information to back it up. The angry man changes his vote in the last minutes of the film and leaves you wondering if he truly had a change of heart or if he was just giving in to the pressure of being the last holdout. We have the same question about the man with the cold. He quietly changed his vote after his speech made everyone turn on him. He doesn't have much to say after that so it is hard to judge his motives. One thing is clear. For a true consensus each member must be satisfied with the decision. According to DeStephen and Dirokawa (198

Some common words found in the essay are:
Henry Fonda's, Twelve Angry, Jack Klugman's, Henry Fonda, DeStephen Hirokawa, Ernest Bormann, DeStephen Dirokawa, Reginald Rose, fonda's character, henry fonda's character, henry fonda's, twelve angry, baseball fan, true consensus, vote guilty, klugman's character, jack klugman's, jack klugman's character, Mike Behm, boy guilty, Rothwell Dan, satisfied decision, angry man cold, movie twelve angry,

Approximate Word count = 2683
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page double spaced)

Category: Miscellaneous