The film “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a drama that displays twelve jurors’ in-depth thinking to choose an unanimous decision on the defendant’s sentence. There are lots of assets and liabilities of the group that contribute in their decision making. The jurors are all defined in regards to their characters, backgrounds, bias and psychological tilts.
This paper will argue that when pride, jealousy, aggravation and bias all emerge we see unreasonable and reasonable decision making methods.
The assets of group is revealed when juror # 8 starts a various approach to evidence by showing the knife that was thought to be uncommon. It begins the procedure of participation in issue resolving by other jury members who may have made up their mind or were simply feeling conformity pressure. Greater amount of individual’s overall information starts to helps jury make a better decision. Liabilities of a group are program when every one except juror # 8 raise their hand sensation conformity pressure. There is desire of private shown by juror # 3 to dominate and win the argument rather than finding a best option.
Lack of interest is revealed by juror # 7 to factor or hang out to resolve issue. There are bias feelings revealed by juror # 10 and 7, they think juror # 5 and 11 do not understand much since of their backgrounds. Each group figures out possessions and liabilities of their group’s issue resolving. As long argument is not individual and remains in interest of finest service it’s healthy. Time needed to solve an issue doubts, members might get impatient and solve issue without reasoning. Risk taking is either great or bad depending on how a group utilizes it.
Each group has a different problem to solve and different personalities to work with which is why each group can utilize assets and liabilities positively and adversely. Throughout the movie, Juror 10 is violently prejudiced versus anybody who comes from a run-down neighborhood. “You can’t think a word they say,” he states– keep in mind that Juror Ten does not say “he,” implying the defendant, but “they,” the group of shanty towns as a whole. This proves that he can not make a fair judgment about individual regret.
Juror 9, the senior guy with built up life experience, notices this and rebukes right away saying “Since when is dishonesty a group attribute?” The intolerance of Juror 10 continues before finally appearing in a long speech that leads the other jurors to decline him. The message is clear that such irrational prejudice is incompatible with justice. Juror Four likewise reveals indications of such prejudice, though he couches it in more appropriate words: “The kids who come out of slum backgrounds are possible menaces to society. When an individual hears the word bias, he or she may think it only describes the racial bias typically discovered in between those with light skin and those with dark skin. However, prejudice runs much deeper than an individual’s color. Prejudice is found in between gender, faith, cultural and geographical background, and race. People have discriminated against others based upon these characteristics from the start of time. Bias has ended up being a complex issue in our society; for instance, if someone were to walk in a secluded area at night and pass a group of senior citizens, she or he will, more than likely, not feel threatened.
Nevertheless, if instead of seniors, 3 teenagers worn ripped jeans and tee shirts using metal chains around their necks passed the person is most likely to feel threatened. Bias is the sad fact of today’s society. Whether it’s from viewing the regional news or reading the newspaper, many people base stereotypes on the media or personal experiences. Although these are the most hassle-free ways to evaluate somebody, they are also the worst. Whenever dealing with the media, occasions are dramatized and slowly build into the subconscious. The impacts of prejudice then affect our choices without us even recognizing it.