Twelve Angry Men example essay topic

TWELVE ANGRY MEN? UTTERLY CONFUSED? Mike Bushnell Andy Brown Lisa Des tito-Rose Courtney Bruno Mike Be hm Although the 1957 movie? Twelve Angry Men? was not written for this purpose, it serves as an excellent portrayal of small group development.

The author, Reginald Rose, had written it after his own personal experience serving as a juror. In? Twelve Angry Men? a young man stands accused of stabbing his own father to death. The jurors must unanimously decide the defendant's guilt or innocence.

If found guilty, the accused will be put to death in the electric chair. To eleven of the jurors this is an open and shut case, but one lone juror stands against them to prove there is reasonable doubt. As the movie unfolds, you begin to see several group roles emerge. Initially, the jury foreman is filling the role of leader.

He has been chosen to tabulate votes, call for evidence, and fulfill other organizational duties during deliberations. Over time, his leadership over the group begins to erode. At the onset, he appears to be a little hesitant, as if not quite sure how to proceed. He makes suggestions and looks for approval from the others. He contributes little to the discussion. As the debate becomes more and more heated, the foreman starts having difficulty maintaining control.

In fact, at one point he tries to give up his position altogether, but they assure him that he is doing a fine job and should continue. With his laissez-faire leadership style, he does more following than leading. The foreman had been formally chosen to be a leader for the jurors. Two other leaders emerge during deliberations. The first is the character that Henry Fonda plays. While everyone else votes guilty, he is the one man to say he is not sure.

Exhibiting a democratic leadership style, he proves to be very effective. He is a reasonable, polite, and open-minded man who does not force his opinion on others. In the end, he convinces all of the jurors to join him in voting not guilty. On the other hand, the character we? ll refer to as the? angry man? is a very different kind of leader. He is sure that the defendant is guilty, and won? t rest until he has sent him to the chair. At times it seems he has a personal vendetta against the boy.

An autocratic leader, he is inconsiderate and loud, having frequent fits of rage. Although he is leading the majority in the beginning, as deliberations continue he becomes increasingly belligerent and loses his effectiveness. Ernest Bormann (1990) developed a theory of leader emergence where a small, zero-history group selects a leader by a process of elimination. Potential leaders are ruled out one after the other until a single person remains.

As Bormann predicts, the quiet members are the first ones eliminated in? Twelve Angry Men? With his lack of participation in the discussion, the jury foreman is among those ruled out for this reason. The most talkative group members (Henry Fonda's character, the baseball fan, the angry man, and the man with a cold) are still potential leaders. The baseball fan does not emerge as a leader, though, because he has more of a commitment to his ball game than he does to his opinion of the case.

The man with the cold has an awful lot to say but his opinions are too extreme for the group to go along with. The angry man, having been the most outspoken for the guilty vote, also loses his followers and finds himself alone. This is due to his hostile behavior and his complete inability to see beyond his personal crusade. Alternatively, Henry Fonda's character is able to persuade everyone because of his excellent communication skills and commitment to the task at hand. Many informal roles also emerged throughout the movie.

For instance, the baseball fan can be easily identified as the clown. He is seen making jokes, whistling, using sarcasm, and even throwing paper balls at the fan. Other disruptive and self-centered roles are depicted by the angry man and the man with the cold. They both act as stage hogs. The man with the cold constantly interrupts the others while they are speaking and the angry man shouts throughout the entire movie, as if by being the loudest he will convince them he is right.

They both exhibit traits of the blocker and fighter-controller. They frequently argue with the other jurors, put them down, and won? t let them finish what they? re saying. They fight them every step of the way and won? t accept the fact that much of the evidence has been made worthless. Right up until the end the angry man is still rehashing disqualified evidence.

Being the zealot, the man with the cold is dead set on convincing everyone that his prejudiced opinions are right. At one point he goes into a long tirade about slum children and doesn? t stop until nearly everyone gets up and walks away from the table in protest. While all of these disruptive roles were being demonstrated, the men exhibiting task roles were fighting against them to reach a fair, unbiased decision. Heading up this group of jurors was Henry Fonda's character. He played many roles. Most importantly he was the? devil's advocate?

Everyone had already decided the boy was guilty and Fonda honestly didn? t know for sure what to believe. Instead of just going along with the crowd and accepting the evidence as it was presented, he challenged everything. He was also the director, guiding the discussion and reminding them that they must acquit if there is a reasonable doubt. Fonda also acted as initiator-contributor by suggesting different possible scenarios for the way that the crime was committed and how the witnesses? testimonies could be flawed.

All of these roles combined with coordinator and clarifier-elaborator made him a very effective leader. Several other jurors filled similar task roles. For example, the old man and Jack Klugman's character each exhibited the role of information giver. The old man was able to suggest an explanation for why one of the witnesses may have been untruthful in his testimony.

Although he doesn? t say it, he knows these things from personal experience. Jack Klugman's character is able to describe the way a switchblade knife is typically used based on what he saw growing up in the slums. In this group and in most others, it can be difficult to label any one juror as playing out a specific task role. Many tasks seem to be shared by different group members. In? Twelve Angry Men? this was true of the role of information seeker.

Throughout deliberations the role shifted to many different jurors. This can also be said of many maintenance roles. Although these traits were displayed, you really can? t pinpoint any one person as filling the role throughout the movie. There were many faulty inferences made throughout the film. An inference is a conclusion about the unknown based on the known. Many assumptions were made by the jurors based on information that they took as fact without question.

Other poor inferences came about through their own mindsets. When the jurors first walk into the room, they begin to discuss the case. It becomes clear that many have already decided to vote guilty. This is confirmed when they take an initial vote and there is only one vote for not guilty. They decide to go around the table and let everyone explain their reasoning. It is at this point that you begin to see that some of their inferences are not necessarily reasonable.

The angry man starts out by saying, ? I have no personal feelings about this. I just want to talk about facts.? He then goes on to list several key points from the testimonies and says, ? these are facts, you can? t refute facts.? Of course now we know that the testimonies he refers to are flawed, such as the old man downstairs making it to the door in time to see the suspect. He and the others automatically believed that the witnesses were telling the exact truth and that they couldn? t possibly be wrong.

The man with the cold talks about the woman identifying the boy. He doesn? t question the fact that she saw him through a passing el-train or that she may have poor eyesight. The angry man insists that the old man in the suspect's building could have identified a yelling voice from downstairs even with the el-train passing by. Several jurors point out how the man who sold the boy the knife said it was the only one of its kind. Therefore it must be his knife.

Even after Henry Fonda's character produces an exact replica some still don? t see reason to question any testimonies. At the same time, they automatically assume that the boy had lied on the stand. For example, the stockbroker says that the boy should have been able to remember the details about what he did that night, even after finding out that his father had been killed. Since he couldn? t, he must have been lying. After listening to the man with the cold making similar statements, Henry Fonda points out their biased opinion by saying, ? you don? t believe the boy's story but you believe the woman?'s. She's one of them too, isn? t she??

There was one major collective inferential error made. Several jurors correlated the fact that the boy was from a bad neighborhood with his being guilty. The man with the cold puts a great deal of effort into trying to convince the others that the boy is guilty because all children with his background are no good. He says, ?

I? ve lived among them? they? re born liars.? The stockbroker backs him up with statements like, ? slums are breeding grounds for criminals? and? children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.? The angry man takes it a step further and starts ranting about the? rotten kids these days? Their confirmation bias made it very difficult to convince them otherwise. There are many instances where jurors made attempts to correct faulty thinking. To illustrate, the old man mentions how the woman on the stand had little marks on her nose.

Since they probably came from glasses, he was bringing attention to the fact that her eyesight was questionable. She probably didn? t have her glasses on in bed, so how was she able to identify the boy? Jack Klugman's character demonstrates how the boy would have used the switchblade, and why the stab wound didn? t match. The watchmaker says, ? On the surface the boy looks guilty, but maybe if we go deeper?? Specifically, he questions why the boy would return to the apartment three hours after the killing.

Henry Fonda's character challenges the stockbroker's assumption that the boy should have remembered details about that night. He asks the stockbroker for details about his own activities over the last few days and he is unable to remember everything. Fonda also states, ? everybody sounded so positive? nothing is that positive. Suppose the witnesses are wrong? They? re the entire case for the prosecution!? Fonda actually demonstrates that the man downstairs would not have been able to make it to his door in time to see the defendant.

Several jurors fought the assumption that all kids from the slums were criminals. For instance, when the man with the cold called them? born liars? , the old man retorts, ? only an ignorant man can believe that.? Later he says, ? I don? t think the kind of boy he is has anything to do with it.

The facts are supposed to determine the case.? In a jury situation all members of the group must come to a unanimous agreement. The jurors in? Twelve Angry Men? eventually all voted not guilty. However, even though they agreed to this it doesn? t necessarily mean that they reached a true consensus. According to DeStephen and Hiro kawa (1988), a true consensus must meet five criteria.

They are: 1. Members agree with the group decision. 2. Members exhibit a commitment to the group decision. 3.

Members are satisfied with the group decision. 4. Members are satisfied with their participation in the decision making. 5. Members are satisfied with the group decision-making process. Most of the jurors met these requirements.

This would include Henry Fonda's character, the foreman, the stockbroker, the timid man, Jack Klugman's character, the watchmaker, the old man, and the working man. They all seemed committed to their decision. Although there were interruptions, everyone eventually got a chance to say what they wanted to say. They were satisfied that the process, though not an enjoyable one, was thorough enough to make a well-informed decision. Even though the other jurors were probably satisfied with their participation and they all agreed to vote not guilty, some did this with questionable motives. Based on this information, we believe that the jury did not reach a true consensus.

Not everyone exhibited a commitment to the group's decision. The most obvious example of this is the baseball fan. After insisting throughout deliberations that the boy was guilty, he suddenly changes his mind and votes not guilty. The watchmaker agrees with his vote but he challenges it, saying, ? it would be wrong to change your vote just because you have had enough? When he demands an explanation the baseball fan is completely unable to give even a single reason.

All he can say is, ? I just think he's not guilty? It is apparent that he was tired of being there and changed his vote just so it would end sooner. The advertising executive's vote is also questionable because he changed it three times. His decision seemed to be based on whoever spoke last. We aren? t really clear on whether the angry man really believed in his vote of not guilty.

The movie doesn? t give enough information to back it up. The angry man changes his vote in the last minutes of the film and leaves you wondering if he truly had a change of heart or if he was just giving in to the pressure of being the last holdout. We have the same question about the man with the cold. He quietly changed his vote after his speech made everyone turn on him. He doesn? t have much to say after that so it is hard to judge his motives. One thing is clear.

For a true consensus each member must be satisfied with the decision. According to DeStephen and Dirokawa (1988), this means the decision cannot contradict any deeply held beliefs. The man with the cold and the angry man both have very deeply rooted prejudices. It would be almost impossible for them to be satisfied with their decision.

The movie? Twelve Angry Men? is an excellent tool for demonstrating the difficulties small groups endure and how our biases and assumptions can cloud our judgement. As Henry Fonda's character states, ? prejudice always obscures the truth? By building our communication skills and avoiding faulty inferences, we can become very effective in the groups we work with every day.

REFERENCE: Rothwell, J. Dan (1998). In Mixed Company: Small Group Communication (3rd Edition). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College Publishers..