12 Angry Men – Deviant Behavior

12 Angry Men– Deviant Behavior

At the beginning of the movie, it might appear that Juror # 8 is displaying deviant habits. The scene opens with the jurors casting guilty votes to figure out a thoughtless decision. All eleven jurors, except one (Juror # 8) voted guilty. As an audience viewing this movie, you need to give the character factor to consider given that he chose to go against the norm and vote innocent. He could be considered a deviant due to the fact that he has no legitimate proof to prove his decision, however he says that there suffices reasonable doubt to question the validity of the case.

Is he not voting guilty simply to get an increase out of everyone or is he truly questioning the case? It is apparent that the other characters are not entertained and single him out.

This is likewise a deviant trait. However, this deviant quality leads into an emerging management that the other characters regard. As a leader, Juror # 8 stands apart for different reasons. Among the most prominent is at the beginning of the movie. Juror # 8 begins to display task-related functions by offering up an originality to the group. In this case, it was the idea of the young boy being innocent.

Although the males were disturbed with him, the thought had actually crossed their mind long enough to recognize he may be right.

By offering up his opinion and a brand-new suggestion, he opened the door for character development of the other jurors. This then creates brand-new choices and procedures for the group to explore. However, this also produces secondary stress and new power battles. Juror # 8’s point was that he had no considerable proof to show that he understood the boy was not guilty, however he had enough doubt to make the claim.

Given that the remainder of the jurors had their minds focused in “guilty-mode”, the secondary stress shows up to interrupt their substantive agreement. For instance, Juror # 8 is continuously mocked by the smaller minded of the jurors: the bigot or the sports fan. Others, nevertheless, are more open-minded and are curious to hear what he needs to state.

For example, the old guy sitting beside Juror # 8 appeared to be the most intrigued by Juror # 8, simply since he had the nerve to be different. It is apparent to the viewer that Juror # 8 is the leader, however as the remainder of the jurors come into their own; you start to question their effectiveness.

For instance, a power struggle is constantly brewing between Juror # 8 and the juror with the image of his boy. Out of all the jurors, he outs up the most vicious battle. In the beginning, specific traits, such as his aggressiveness or persuasiveness, may have identified him as a leader. Although in the end, he had become the deviant to the other members of the jury. However, even as the secondary stress is increasing, Juror # 8 starts to emerge as the leader by elaborating on what every juror was trying to state or making tips to keep the group focused.

Towards the middle of the film, he had actually encouraged practically half of the jury to be not guilty! They even started to go up to him and ask him what he truly thought of the case. All he might state was all of it might have “potentially” not occurred. This clearly wasn’t enough to encourage the more tough characters. Among the communication principles that Juror # 8 shows throughout the movie is the contingency concept. This holds that achieving appropriate management behaviors depends upon the circumstance. Juror # 8 achieved this idea really eloquently.

He had to consider that he was going to be dealing with extremely tough ridicule and because he understood absolutely nothing of the other jurors, he needed to keep an open mind about all of their tips too.

The jury’s setting was so intricate. Opposing views were flying all over the place. Perhaps he desired the other jurors to show him incorrect. He was constantly asking the guilty voters to safeguard their answers. The opposing jurors were most likely being convinced without even knowing it. He conveyed the suitable attitudes and patience to go along with the readiness level of the other jurors to change their votes.

Juror # 8 also depicted such an evasive listener that this could have also earned him so much regard.

For example, he actually attempted to understand the supported proof that the stockbroker needed to use. In conclusion, Juror # 8 emerged as a very successful leader. Whether he understood that his doubt was going to have such an extensive impact on the juries decision was unknown, but his motivation definitely altered things. He emerged into a management design whether or not he wanted to, all since of the respect he earned by others. They learned a lot from him, as others viewing this film surely did.

You Might Also Like