Throughout the movie, there is apparently more than one “leader” throughout the jury as according to Nick’s meaning of a leader being that there were several influences and instances that persuaded the decisions of others. At first the situation is composed of a biased and opinionated jury that is nearly all encouraged the accused is guilty. Throughout the scene, there is a slow but sure change of mind throughout the jury as the protagonist, Juror # 8, successfully convinces the other jurors who initially voted the young boy guilty of murder to even more examine and examine the truth which ultimately leads to the confirmation and arrangement of reasonable doubt amongst the jury.
Juror 8’s efficient followership was best represented by his consistent approach and solution to the conflict that at first had nobody even listening.
Juror 8 knew what he was standing up for, proper justice, even in the face of misfortune as he was challenged by everybody in the space and his determination and courage to presume the duty and challenge the assumed (198 ).
He is likewise seen as a leader of the group through the sincerity and stability he showed by “acting in accordance with strong moral principles” (41) as well as a drive to reach a truthful verdict by convincing the group to take a look at all the possibilities regardless of the obvious and presumed. Juror 3 would best be classified as an alienated fan as his prejudice against the accused clouds his judgment, placing a predisposition on why he thinks the young boy is guilty.
As it ends up, his own son that he hasn’t seen for 2 years had actually grown up challenging his authority and rejecting his morals providing the basis for the anger that is shown so stubbornly up until the really bitter end. As pushed away fans “are capable, they focus solely on the shortcomings and have actually experienced problems and obstacles” (195) as did Juror 3 when initially, he had convincingly and mindlessly encouraged the others of the defendant’s guiltiness as an outcome of the anger he felt from the bitter relationship he had with his kid.
Juror 10 could most absolutely be categorized as conformist fan as his persistent belief in the offender’s guiltiness was supported by a mindless and intolerant argument supported by his racist, bigoted remarks. Initially Juror 10 voluntarily took part in the heated yet persuaded conversation as there was little doubt about the offender’s guilt and dispute was at a minimum. As the tables turned and tension rose, Juror 10 discovered himself “interested in preventing dispute” (195) and became less of a factor to the discussion.
As with Juror 8, in any circumstance in which there is an unpredictability or doubt present, particularly relating to a choice with such significant implications such as the one presented to the “Twelve Angry Men”, I find it highly essential to even more examine and take all things into factor to consider before deciding. The suspicion of shady, doubtful behavior of the CEO is to be analyzed and reviewed in the same way that Juror 8 went about questioning the presumed “realities” and took a look at all the possibilities.