“If there’s an affordable doubt in your minds as to the regret of the accused, an affordable doubt, then you should bring me a verdict of not guilty … nevertheless you choose, your decision should be unanimous.” The movie, The Twelve Angry Guys, was a fascinating movie. Surprisingly, it was really interesting and appealing despite the fact that it was in black and white and made in 1950. This film was a perfect demonstration of how people who meet in a goal orientated group fulfill roles, develop standards, have status, acquire power, and become leaders, and how a group decides on an unanimous outcome.
Each of the twelve jury members fulfilled a function eventually within the motion picture. They satisfied task roles, maintenance roles, and self-indulgent roles. They had to learn to work together despite the roles they played to come to an unanimous decision. The Forman (Juror # 1) fulfilled one group maintenance role (tension reliever) and two group job roles (procedural technician and initiator).
As a tension reducer, the Forman told Cobb to calm down when Cobb started on his rant. He often attempted to relieve tension in circumstances with dispute. As a procedural service technician, Forman emphasized team effort by asking the group to vote a number of times in a couple various ways, singing ballots and silent ballots. This helped the group stay on track. He likewise ran errands for the group, like obtaining the knife and the house blueprint.
As an initiator, the Forman started the conversations after the jurors would break in the start of the motion picture. Whimpy (juror # 2) fulfilled a group maintenance function as an advocate. As soon as Whimpy changed his vote to not guilty, he supported Fonda’s ideas. When Fonda was conversing with Cobb about the glasses, Whimpy supported Fonda’s viewpoint and told Cobb, “You can’t send somebody off to pass away on evidence like that!” Lee J. Cobb (juror # 3) played three specific roles (blocker, boss, and confessor) and one group task function (opinion giver). Cobb played the role of the blocker usually. From the beginning to the end of the film, he disagreed and ignored any of the jurors’ declarations that are various from his viewpoint. At one point, Cobb shut down Whimpy who wanted to speak out. As a boss, Cobb belligerently chewed out anyone who voted non guilty. He frequently began on a rant of his viewpoints and refused to let any of the other jurors speak. Cobb played the role as a confessor towards the start of the motion picture when he shared the image of his boy.
As a viewpoint Provider, Cobb stated over and over that he was favorable the boy was guilty and should have the capital punishment. He repeatedly stated through out the motion picture, “he (the kid) has to pay for what he did.” E. G. Marshall (juror # 4) played a group job function. As an opinion giver, Marshall was faithful to his vote. His viewpoint towards completion of the motion picture was still not guilty due to the fact that of the eyewitness testament from the females across the street. He was company in this belief up until the glasses fact was brought up. Jack Klugman (juror # 5) fulfilled a group job role. As an elaborator, he often compared and contrasted the case to his own life on the street. Particularly, he brought important info to the case when talking about the correct way to utilize a switch knife and how this info compared to the father’s stab wound. The painter (juror # 6) was an info candidate, a group task role. It seemed as if the painter was uncertain of where he meant the majority of the movie. At one point he said to Fonda, “Supposin’ you talk us all out of this and, uh, the kid really did knife his father.” He was inquiring that would make him sure of his choice. Jack Warden (juror # 7) played a group-building and upkeep function (follower) and a specific role (Joker).
He wanted the jurors to reach a conclusion as quickly as possible. He had tickets to see a baseball video game, and did not wish to miss it. He followed and switched his vote to whatever the popular vote was, so that he might leave as soon as possible to get to the baseball game. As a joker, he said nothing that added to making a decision. He mainly joked or grumbled that the process was taking too long. Henry Fonda (juror # 8) satisfied lots of group job roles in this movie including informational candidate, informative provider, and initiator. As an educational seeker, Fonda requested crucial facts that could help convince the jurors that it was possible the young boy was innocent. For example, when the senior man mentioned that the witness had damages on the sides of her nose, Fonda requested for an explanation and information on what the senior male suggested by pointing this out. As an informational provider, Fonda demonstrated this role when he reenacted for how long it would take the crippled old guy to get across his bed room, down the hall to unlock the door, and to see the kid run down the stairs. As the initiator, Fonda proposed originalities and ideas that there was a possibility that the boy was not guilty. He was the first person to suggest that the boy was innocent. He initiated the majority of the conversations that cause their verdict of innocent.
The elderly man (juror # 9) satisfied a group task function and a group-building and maintenance role. As a details provider, the senior man was the one to see that the witness had notches on the side of her nose where normally spectacles generally sit. He was the one to point this out to the group. As an encourager, the elderly male was the very first to comprehend and accept the innocent vote that Fonda made. He concurred with Fonda’s ideas and recommendations that there is sensible doubt that the young boy might not be guilty. Archie (juror # 10) played a specific function of special-interest pleader. At the end of the film, Archie had a melt down. He screamed and angered many of the jurors with his unnecessary crude insults and racist remarks. He was trying to sway the group based on his own personal biased opinions instead of the realities of the case. The watchmaker (juror # 11) fulfilled one group task function as a recorder. At one point in the film, the watch maker stood up and told the group that he had actually been listening and taking notes of what the other group members have been stating. Slick (juror # 12) played a group structure and upkeep role as a fan. He did not speak out much about the case. When he did speak, it was about his advertising agency. He thought really extremely of himself and his job. He altered his vote back and forth a number of times. In addition to roles, there were numerous social standards that established through out this movie.
All of them were violated by at least a single person at some point. In some cases, the jurors who broke the norms were punished and other times they were not. The very first social standard that was developed was to vote guilty. Fonda was the first to breach this standard by voting not guilty. Ultimately the remainder of the group gradually alters their vote, and the group produced a brand-new standard of voting not guilty instead of guilty. Another social norm that was produced by the legal system was that the jurors’ decision needed to be unanimous. Fonda breached this norm by voting against the group. As penalty for breaching the standard, the group verbally assaulted him prior to they provided him a possibility to discuss his reasoning. Because of this, a norm established that it was all right for the jurors to pester and belittle Fonda for his not guilty vote. The senior male broke this norm. He went through harassment and belittlement in addition to his punishment. After time went on, more people began to agree with Fonda’s ideas, and the group did not follow this standard any more. An additional social standard was to make a decision based upon realities, not bias or stereotypes. Those who obeyed the standard, like Fonda and Marshall, were aimed to as leaders. The juror that made arguments based on stereotypes, Archie, was ultimately ignored. From this, a standard that no racial bias would be endured was produced. Archie broke this standard when he stated that he understood individuals of these kinds very well.
As penalty, one by one group members left the table and turned their backs on him. In every group, there are members of high status and of low status. In this motion picture, there was practically an equivalent balance of high status jurors and low status jurors. The status of the jurors developed when they presumed a function within the group. The high status members consisted of, the Foreman, Cobb, Marshall, Fonda, the Elderly Man, and Archie. The Foreman presumed a high status role due to the fact that he arranged where everybody would sit, lost consciousness the tallies, and had the ability to rein the jurors back in to vote when needed. Cobb would be thought about high status because he dominated a lot of the discussions. He interacted more than other group members, and other jurors listened to him in the start of the film. Marshall is a stockbroker and was deemed high status because of his education. Fonda was certainly a high status member. Over the course of the film, he convinced the other eleven jurors to change their vote by pointing out originalities and ideas. The senior man proved his high status when he pointed out the info about the witness using eyeglasses.
That swayed the rest of the jurors. The low status members included, Whimpy, Klugman, the painter, Warden, Archie, the watchmaker, and Slick. Whimpy attempted to voice his opinion, however was hardly ever listened too. Klugman was deemed low status because of his life on the streets. The painter, Warden, the watchmaker, and Slick were all considered low status, due to the fact that they hardly contributed to the group’s choice. Archie is thought about low status because of his racial insults. None of the jurors listened to him due to the fact that they were all offended by his speech. In addition to status, power is likewise a huge part of the film. Every effective individual was considered to be high status. Some individuals used their power for the great, others for the bad, and one person totally quit his power.
As the jurors begin their deliberation, the foreman was chosen to be the leader of the group. He had genuine power. He informed the jurors that the vote needs to be consentaneous, that they need to sit in juror number order, and he tried to keep the group on task.
After the supervisor stopped using his power, Fonda and Cobb ended up being more powerful. Fonda had a skilled power. He recommended concepts and facts that the other jurors listened to. He affected the group through their understanding, therefore a professional power. Cobb, nevertheless, had a coercive power. Cobb thought he might he might “penalize” the other jurors into thinking his way. He would “punish” the other jurors by manipulating and belittling them.Also, Klugman had skilled power for a couple minutes in the movie. His street knowledge about the knife and how it was utilized gains him this power. Although he had a professional power, he was not viewed in the very same consider as Fonda.
Most of the low status member did not have any power at all. Whimpy, the painter, Warden, Archie, the watchmaker, and Slick did not have the status to acquire power. However, they did play a crucial function in power, due to the fact that in a way, they gave the power to the people who had it. In such a way, leadership and power go hand in hand. In this movie, the powerful people had at least a few leadership qualities. The supervisor had a chance at leadership, but he provided it up. Cobb had some negative management qualities that were ultimately declined.
Fonda was the most crucial leader in this film. He took over as a leader after supervisor stepped down. He addressed upkeep requirements, he proposed legitimate details, and was enthusiastic toward swaying the group not to condemn the kid to death. As a leader, Fonda listened to the low status individuals when they knew to offer. For instance, Klugman had information about the knife that may have been overlooked if Fonda was not respectful of him.
In the end, the group did get to a high quality decision. Although the case in the courtroom seems crystal clear that the kid was guilty, there were some misleading facts that were given. The jurors all voted not guilty; nevertheless, they were not positive the kid was not guilty. There was insufficient considerable proof to show if the young boy did or did not stab his father.
If the jury had voted guilty, the boy would have been condemned to death. This was a life or death choice, not just a guilty or not guilty. When the Fonda and some of the other jurors began to break down the evidence and the truths, they found the evidence to be misleading to the point were it might not be factual.
Although the kid might have eliminated his dad, there was affordable doubt in the proof to make the jurors believe the young boy may be innocent. Even the possibility of condemning an innocent boy to death is horrifying. The group made the right high quality choice.