12 Angry Men

Ayush Singh - PGP14060

Dipasha Saxena - PGP14071
Garvit Yadav - IPM02171
Gouthami Bhaskar Pola - PGP14085
Gurav Gauravi Rajan - PGP14086

Group 8
 Introduction
The setup of this case is a jury room of an American courthouse. 12 jurors had gathered there
to deliberate on the judgment of an 18-year-old young man who was on trial for stabbing his
father to death.

In the beginning, the judge instructs the jurors that they must come to a decision, and if they
find the convict guilty, then the court will not consider any recommendation for mercy. The
young man would be put to death via the electric chair.

There were two primary witnesses to the stabbing:

1) an old man who claimed to have heard the boy stab his father & seen him flee down the
stairs
2) a lady who witnessed the event from across the street through the passing window of an
elevated train.
The jurors, who all belonged to a different background and had different perspectives,
opinions & values had to come to a consensus in order to determine the fate of the young
man
 The Witnesses
The Old Man The Lady

Testified in court that he heard the boy Testified in court that she saw the boy
say "I'll kill you" stab his father with a switch knife.
He heard the father's body collapse and She saw the incidence at midnight
saw the boy run downstairs She saw it through the last two cars of
He claimed that it took him 15 seconds an elevated train
to get from his bed to the front door Juror 9 deduced that she must have
Juror 8 contested his claim in the jury eyesight problems & probably wore
room & demonstrated that it was not high powered glasses based on the
possible for an old man with a limp to marking on her face
cover the distance in 15 seconds
 The Jurors
Juror 1 Assistant high school football coach Calm, structed & methodical

Juror 2 A bank teller Timid, meek & easily flustered

Hot-tempered, aggressive
Juror 3 Owner of a courier business
He was estranged with his son

Contentious, analytical, fact-driven

Juror 4 A stockbroker
He had high powered glasses due to nearsightedness

He grew up in a slum and was sensitive towards prejudice

Juror 5 A basketball fan
against people from slums

Highly principled, had great respect for the elderly

Juror 6 A house painter

Juror 7 A salesman Casual, flippant, he was more concerned about a baseball game

Humane, kind, initially the only person who voted "not guilty"
Juror 8 Architect (Davis)
He took initiative to change the votes of other members

An intelligent old man who was observant of others behavior

Juror 9 An elderly man (McCardle)
He was the first one to support Juror 8 (Davis)

Juror 10 A garage owner He was vociferous & had prejudice against slum people

Polite and upstanding

Juror 11 A European Watchmaker He was a migrant who showed great respect towards democratic
values

Juror 12 An advetising executive Good-humored, initially dismissive & indecisive

 The Formal Group Setting
Stereotyping Bias: Juror 10 stereotypes the defendant because he comes from a poor
neighborhood. Juror 10 believes that all kids who grow up in slums are potential
criminals, and he uses this stereotype to justify his belief that the defendant is guilty.
Juror 3, is very quick to judge the defendant because he is different from him. Juror 3 is
a successful businessman, and he believes that the defendant is a lazy and
irresponsible kid who deserves to be punished.

Confirmation Bias: Juror 10 already believes that the defendant is guilty, so he only
pays attention to information that supports this belief. He ignores any information that
suggests the defendant may be innocent.

False Consensus: Many of the jurors believe that the defendant must have been angry
at his father and that he must have killed him in a fit of rage. However, there is no
evidence to support this assumption.
Social influence is also a major factor in the jurors' decision-making. The jurors are all
under a lot of pressure to conform to the majority opinion, and they are reluctant to
disagree with the other jurors. This pressure to conform can lead to Groupthink, which
is a situation where the group makes decisions that are not in the best interests of the
individual members.

 Leadership Through Juror 8

Patience: Despite early resistance and skepticism, Juror 8 persists in
delivering his reasons with patience and persistence, allowing others to
progressively change their minds.

Good Listening Skills: Juror 8 pays close attention to and takes into
account the opinions of his fellow jurors. He gains their respect and
establishes a connection by using this tactic.

Open-Mindedness: Juror 8 is prepared to take into account other

theories and cast doubt on the prosecution's case, which inspires others
to analyze the data and at the same time directs the jurors' thought and
persuade them to rethink their presumptions.
Henry Fonda
Empathy: He demonstrates empathy for the young man who is being
charged and urges others to see the matter from the defendant's point of
view, promoting a more compassionate and objective conversation.
Communication between
the Jurors
Some jurors exhibit aggressive communication in the beginning,
frequently yelling down opposing points of view.
This may not result in fruitful conversations and fosters a tense
environment. Several jurors communicate quietly, either by
remaining mute or by passively expressing their thoughts.
This may result in their suggestions being disregarded and limit
their ability to influence the group's decisions.
Juror 8 communicates in a =facts and from the beginning he
didn't took any side rather wanted conversations to decide . He
plainly and boldly conveys his thoughts without dominating or
demeaning others.
This strategy promotes respectful communication among the jury
members.
Jurors utilize persuasive communication strategies, such as logical
arguments, emotional appeals, and counterarguments, to
persuade their fellow members of the jury.
 Conclusion
The conclusion of the film 12 Angry Men is that the jurors are able to overcome their initial discomfort
& biases to reach a just verdict. The locked door signifies the juror's burden of responsibility.
The film begins with the jurors voting guilty, even though several of them have doubts about the
case, however one juror, is not so easily convinced, he believes that the evidence against the
defendant is circumstantial & that there is reasonable doubt. &begins to question the other juror
about the evidence &he slowly begins to win over them.

They are trapped in the room until they reach a verdict &cannot leave until they have made a decision
about the defendant's guilt or innocence, this symbolizes the weight of the decision that they are
making They are responsible for deciding the fate of another human being.
The film 12 Angry Men is a powerful reminder that the justice system is not perfect however the film
also shows that it is possible to overcome these flaws &reach a just verdict. It is important to be willing
to question the evidence & to listen to all sides of story.

Thank
you!