12 Angry Men

The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18 year old boy for the first degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony which was heard in court.   The group went through the common stages of group development as presented in the text; forming, storming, norming, and performing (Robbins, & Judge, 2010) while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved.
After a first vote, juror 8 is the only individual who would like to explore if there is a reasonable doubt in this case.   The remainder of the jurors have expressed indifference and have conformed to the group belief that the boy is guilty without further discussion.   They are irritable secondary to the environmental conditions, and they are eager to return to their personal responsibilities.   In spite of the aggressive atmosphere caused by Juror 8’s decision he uses reason to try to delve deeper into the case and testimony.   His use of reason forces the rest of the group, who have fallen victim to groupthink, to investigate other facts and points of view that were not presented in the courtroom.   He has a sympathetic personality, and uses another method of appealing to higher values within the group to attempt to influence the members.   The use of higher values and reason allows for more open discussion amongst the group and for the discovery of the personal biases and how the personal experiences of each juror has lead them to quickly decide on the boys guilt.   Juror 8 maintains a calm, professional rapport with the group and through his methods is able to emerge as the natural leader   and overshadow the foreman who is agitated when order cannot be kept.   Juror 8 is an effective leader because he is not taking a side in early deliberation; he is just stating that he doesn’t know whether or not the boy is guilty and that he thinks at least some time...