12 Angry Men Weaknesses

This detachment within the Juror, ignoring the life of another person, and choosing not to vote without spending the time to discuss the situation, which may have ended up with the unjust death of an innocent boy. Juror 7 immediately brushes off the severity of the situation, relating to a matter of “anything” when it is in fact anything

Juror #3 and Juror #10 are prime examples of this. During the story’s second act, the jury votes once again, resulting in a six to six split. Juror #10 is irate over that, exclaiming that, “I’m sick and tired of facts” (Rose 76). Juror #10 was so blinded by his prejudice and self-imposed obligation to vote guilty that he is, to his own admission, actively ignoring the facts of the case. By this point in the story, there has been more than enough reasonable doubt fostered that at least five jurors have changed their minds.

Juror 3 is quick to gather a following among the other men by riling up against the defendant and generally shooting down differing opinions. This results in an eleven-to-one vote in favor of guilty almost immediately, likely because the men either succumbed to peer pressure or simply wanted the case to be over with as soon as possible. Juror 7 is a prime example of the latter reasoning, constantly demanding that the other jurors speed things up and getting frustrated whenever something happens that will cause delay. All of these faults can happen in real-life juries, and chances are, they often

Near the end of the play, he went on an angry tangent that highlighted his views even more clearly for the other jurors, turning them away from him and his beliefs. His view on the case was heavily swayed by his own opinions and bigotry. Up until the very end, he was sold on the fact that the boy was guilty with no reason to back it up other than due to his race. Overall, the jurors each had their own personalities that caused their views on the case to be distorted into something that would fit their own beliefs and caused conflict throughout the play. There were many factors that contributed to those conflicts along with the idea

This juror, is also one of the last ones to change his vote to not guilty, because of his

As the play went on, Juror Eight started proving how the boy was innocent. In the end Juror Eight changed all the other juror’s minds, except for Juror Three’s. Juror Three ended up changing his vote, not because they changed his mind but because he gave into peer pressure. He still had his prejudice influenced decision, he only gave in because he didn't want it to be a hung jury. Another example, from the same play, is Juror Eight.

This is when Juror Three realizes he has been holding a personal grudge and has put all of his frustration about the situation onto the case and even the other jurors. Finally, Juror Three votes not

Additionally, age prejudice is also a factor in the play. Juror 8, who is the youngest of the jurors, is often dismissed by the older jurors due to his age and perceived lack of experience. This prejudice is seen in the way the older jurors condescendingly dismiss his ideas and opinions, and in their refusal to take him seriously. These prejudices shape the jurors' decision-making process and contribute to the deliberation being more difficult and contentious than it would have been otherwise. For instance, Juror 10's racist views prevent him from considering the defendant's innocence and lead him to dismiss evidence that supports the defendant's case.

He realizes this when he “contorts [his face] and he begins to pound on [the] table with his fist,” and “seems [to be] about to cry” (Rose 63). This is when Juror 3 realizes that his negative experience with his son has dictated his distaste toward the boy and that he had no real reason to oppose him as much as he did. Though being the most stubborn of the jurors, being able to re-examine the beliefs and opinions he is so fixated on empowers Juror 3 to be able to demonstrate personal accountability, showing how important personal accountability is to confronting one’s past and biases. Throughout the play, because of his loud and opinionated personality, Juror 3 assumes leadership of those voting guilty. This is in stark contrast to Juror 8, a thoughtful person who is willing to give the benefit of the doubt who is the first person to vote not guilty to give the boy a chance.

Another example in Twelve Angry Men, juror 12 couldn't make his own decisions throughout the discussion he would swing his vote to what the majority is voting for. This can show how some jurors are when it comes to the voting process in the jury room, where they ignore or mishear what the judge has told them to do, and how some jurors become unpredictable when making decisions. "The US Legal System is supposed to go by their own opinions and rules, we can follow our own ways". This can't be right when it comes to legal actions done to someone or put onto someone. When in the jury room and courtroom, we have to follow laws and listen to the judge.

The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar

He felt as if no one should feel the way three’s son treated his father. He soon realizes this boy is not his son; he is not the one who he should feel angry and bitter towards. The play ends with juror three voting not guilty, after tearing a picture of him and his son together, then hugging the picture. This proves the central idea because his pride misrepresented the case; he shows no mercy toward the defendant, in spite of his own

When votes are taken initially, it is eleven for guilty and one for non-guilty. Juror eight is the first one to speak up for the boy and say he’s not guilty. Throughout the rest of the play, Juror eight does his best to convince the other jurors that the young man is innocent by uncovering

Juror 3 was intimidating the other jurors, trying to convince them to stick with the guilty verdict. Juror 2 was guilty of self-censorship agreeing with the rest of the group to influence his decisions. The whole group began with the illusion of unanimity. According to Janis illusion of unanimity is, “the majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.” (Psysr.org,

In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.