12 Angry Men focuses on a Jurys deliberations in a capital homicide case. A 12- man Jury is shipped to start deliberations within the first-degree homicide trial of an 18-year- outdated Latino accused within the stabbing loss of life of his father, the place a responsible verdict means computerized loss of life sentence. The case seems to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have misplaced is discovered on the homicide scene; and several other witnesses both heard screaming, noticed the killing or the boy fleeing the scene.
Eleven of the Jurors instantly vote responsible; solely Juror No. Mr. Davis) casts a not responsible vote. At first Mr. Davis’ bases his vote extra so for the sake of dialogue in spite of everything, the Jurors should imagine past an inexpensive doubt that the defendant is responsible. Because the deliberations unfold, the story rapidly turns into a research of the Jurors’ advanced personalities (starting from smart, vibrant and empathetic to smug, prejudiced and cruel), preconceptions, backgrounds and interactions.
That gives the backdrop to Mr. Davis’ makes an attempt in convincing the opposite Jurors “not responsible’ verdict is perhaps applicable.
An enormous really feel of the movie is gotten via the time interval it befell in. Folks’s views on race have been made very publicly throughout the Jury. Lots of them appeared to have private vendettas towards completely different races. They deemed the boys Hispanic race to be slum and nothing greater than that. A common drawback that’s proven in a number of methods all through the movie is private prejudice getting in the way in which of Judgment. Juror quantity ten’s cause for saying the accused boy was responsible was as a result of he felt individuals from slums shouldn’t be trusted and that they kill one and one other for enjoyable.
His prejudice lead him to discriminate towards the boy initially by voting responsible earlier within the movie, earlier than being satisfied in voting not responsible. This was in the course of the civil rights period and all of that. Everyone knows blacks weren’t handled equally and this makes it obvious that it wasn’t simple for any minority throughout the US. Theyd moderately lock them up and throw away the important thing than give them a good trial. Tensions run excessive the second the Jury went into the personal room to deliberate. It was a extremely popular day exterior and the fan wasn’t working nor would the home windows open.
No man wished to spend extra time than what they thought could be environment friendly to find out the decision. Some even spoke about their plans for proper after, pondering it might be a certain wager theyd be out of there quickly with the entire evening forward of them. They have been improper. From then on the movie was an instance straight out of a sociology textbook. Everybody didn’t deviate from the norm of the group… All besides one, Juror #eight. The remainder of the Jury was outraged and deemed him a radical. They may not imagine two issues. One, that he voted not responsible, and second, hat he went towards the group norm.
He tried not one bit to adapt. Fairly, he stood up in grand trend and offered his doubts to his fellow Jurors. Slowly however absolutely his grand scheme was working. He didn’t know for certain whether or not he was responsible or not responsible, however he had an inexpensive doubt and that’s all about what the justice system stands tor. It’s so attention-grabbing whenever you deliver a gaggle o t 12 random individuals right into a setting like a Jury and see what you give you. All of those males, from completely different walks of life , all of them introduced one thing particular to the desk that was ital to their key resolution.
The sociological concept that tone of this movie might simply fall beneath is the battle perspective. On the very starting, viewers can clearly see the strain is between the Jurors whom most have a private prejudice towards the boy for sure cause. Some Jurors merely anticipated boy from the slums would commit an act like that they have been stereotyping that each one individuals who come from slums are criminals. Even when an individual will not be personally prejudiced towards and particular person or group, stereotypes can have them make discriminatory actions comparable to vote responsible.
The rationale many of the Jurors stereotyped the actions of the accused boys is due to socialization. The way in which of transmission was more than likely via media; crimes proven by tv new or new papers are often from neighborhood of low economics standing. Deviance a subject I touched on earlier, is one other sociological side that may be examined on this movie. Deviance is a really relative time period the place relying on the group and state of affairs, it varies. Juror eight was the one that felt from the start the boy was not responsible.
When the primary vote many of the different Jurors by he reality he might assume the boy was harmless and even have been upset at him for pondering that. Because the movie progressed the Jurors started altering their votes, ultimately the roles have been reversed; Juror quantity three seem like the one committing the deviant act since it’s revealed his personal cause for voting responsible is due to points along with his personal son. Probably the most essential issues I realized in observing the sociological elements of this movie is how simple norms can change. The norms of 11 out of the twelve males voted responsible, modified fully to responsible because the movie got here to a selected.