12 Angry Men concentrates on a Jurys deliberations in a capital murder case. A 12- man Jury is sent to start deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year- old Latino implicated in the stabbing death of his daddy, where a guilty verdict indicates automatic death sentence. The case seems open-and-shut: The offender has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have actually lost is discovered at the murder scene; and numerous witnesses either heard yelling, saw the killing or the young boy running away the scene.
Eleven of the Jurors immediately vote guilty; just Juror No. Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. In the beginning Mr. Davis’ bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the Jurors should think beyond an affordable doubt that the defendant is guilty. As the deliberations unfold, the story quickly becomes a research study of the Jurors’ intricate characters (varying from smart, intense and empathetic to arrogant, prejudiced and unforgiving), preconceptions, backgrounds and interactions.
That supplies the backdrop to Mr. Davis’ efforts in encouraging the other Jurors that a “innocent’ verdict might be appropriate.
A huge feel of the film is survived the time period it happened in. Individuals’s views on race were made very publicly within the Jury. Many of them appeared to have individual vendettas versus different races. They considered the young boys Hispanic race to be slum and nothing more than that. A universal issue that is displayed in a number of ways throughout the film is individual bias obstructing of Judgment. Juror number 10’s reason for saying the accused boy was guilty was due to the fact that he felt individuals from shanty towns need to not be relied on and that they kill one and another for fun.
His bias lead him to victimize the boy at first by voting guilty earlier in the film, before being convinced in voting not guilty. This was throughout the civil liberties period and all of that. All of us know blacks weren’t treated similarly and this makes it obvious that it wasn’t simple for any minority within the United States. Theyd rather lock them up and discard the secret than provide a fair trial. Tensions run high the second the Jury went into the personal room to deliberate. It was a really hot day outside and the fan wasn’t working nor would the windows open.
No male wished to spend more time than what they believed would be efficient to determine the verdict. Some even spoke about their prepare for right after, thinking it would be a sure bet theyd run out there soon with the whole night ahead of them. They were wrong. After that the film became an example straight out of a sociology book. Everybody didn’t differ the standard of the group … All other than one, Juror # 8. The remainder of the Jury was outraged and considered him a radical. They might not believe 2 things. One, that he voted not guilty, and 2nd, hat he went against the group norm.
He attempted not one bit to adhere. Rather, he stood in grand fashion and provided his doubts to his fellow Jurors. Slowly however definitely his grand scheme was working. He did not understand for sure whether he was guilty or not guilty, however he had a reasonable doubt and that’s all about what the justice system stands tor. It’s so interesting when you bring a group o t 12 random people into a setting like a Jury and see what you create. All of these males, from different strolls of life, they all brought something special to the table that was ital to their key choice.
The sociological theory that tone of this movie might quickly fall under is the dispute point of view. At the very beginning, audiences can clearly see the stress is between the Jurors whom most have an individual bias against the kid for specific reason. Some Jurors merely expected that a boy from the run-down neighborhoods would commit an act like that they were stereotyping that all people who originate from shanty towns are bad guys. Even if a person is not personally prejudiced versus and individual or group, stereotypes can have them make discriminatory actions such as vote guilty.
The factor the majority of the Jurors stereotyped the actions of the implicated young boys is because of socialization. The way of transmission was probably through media; criminal activities shown by tv new or new documents are regularly from neighborhood of low economics standing. Deviance a topic I touched on earlier, is another sociological element that can be examined in this film. Deviance is a very relative term where depending upon the group and circumstance, it varies. Juror 8 was the only that felt from the beginning the young boy was not guilty.
When the first vote most of the other Jurors by he truth he could believe the kid was innocent and even were disturbed at him for believing that. As the film advanced the Jurors began altering their votes, eventually the functions were reversed; Juror number 3 seem the one devoting the deviant act because it is revealed his own factor for voting guilty is due to the fact that of issues with his own boy. Among the most crucial things I discovered in observing the sociological elements of this film is how simple norms can change. The norms of eleven out of the twelve guys voted guilty, changed completely to guilty as the movie pertained to a selected.