Week 6- 12 Angry Men

I really do love this film. It says a lot about the nature of our judicial system both good and bad. I always want to know how often we actually have a jury of our peers that weighs the case put before them like the one in this film does.

For those who aren't familiar with this film, the plot is very simple. There is a murder trial about a boy who might have killed his father. The film begins with the 12 jurors being dismissed for deliberation. The jurors next take a vote to find out where they stand, and Juror Number 8 (Henry Fonda) is the sole juror who claims a decision of "Not Guilty." The movie then progresses with juror after juror moving their decision from "Guilty" to "Not Guilty" for varying reasons.

To start, juror number 1 comes out attempting to lead the group through his attempts to create order out of the mess by calling for votes and creating a system for arguing points. He does more policing than leading. In the end, juror number 8 is mentioned as the "leader" of the group after persuading several others of the reasonable doubt in the case.

The interesting point of this story is that juror 8 stands up for what he believes and in doing so begins to make individuals out of what seems to be a pressured mob. The first vote was cast by show of hands, which psychologically forces many people to side with the visual majority. The second vote was done by secret ballot, requested by juror 8, allowing people to be more honest about their view. The process seems to be the most important aspect for juror 8. He is not really challenging due process, rather he is forcing the jury to remember their obligations to the process.

Juror 8 takes on a transformational leadership role by slowly creating doubt in person after person which allows each one to cone to their own personal terms of the situation and, in turn, lead the arguments against those that find the accused as guilty. One after another, jurors flip their decision after various doubts in the case presented. Each juror also switches to the side of not guilty by putting aside personal politics and reason.

The story also creates interesting circles or groups within the 12 people. As the story goes along, three or four people on the side of guilty are choosing so for various personal reasons that make them very strong and vocal. The majority are quiet and logical, and then there are several that seem to be of differing social classes and race which makes them pull together in their arguments. Though this is a room of 12 white males, the differences between them are striking, and it was juror 8's intention to play on those differences by approaching his point in as many different angles as possible, but each relating to the specific personalities he was contended with.

I also found several side notes to the story quite interesting. Little nuances such as juror 8's occupation as an architect. Could this be a relation to the concept of a leader being a social architect?