12 Angry Men and the Psychology of the Jury Room Essay

12 Angry Men and the Psychology of the Jury Room - Essay ExampleThe 1957 film 12 Angry Men perfectly captures the tension of the jury room, where life-and-death decisions come d confess to not only careful deliberation, but inner prejudices, self-concerned personal priorities, and invective. Ultimately, the homosexual ego plays just as important a role in the films outcome as the examination of evidence and witnesses in that monastic room. The protagonist of the film, Juror 8, is the only skeptical (and rational) man in the jury room who shines incorruptible end-to-end the entirety of the movie (Verrone 96). Juror 8 is the alone(predicate) standout at the beginning of the jury deliberations, which angers many of the other jurors who feel it is an open-and-shut case. But Juror 8 explains his hesitation Its not easy to countermand my hand and send a male child off to die without talking about it first (12 Angry Men). Juror 8 represents caution and consideration in the jury room. T he character does not demonstrate some of the same logical flaws as his fellow deliberators he is depicted as lacking the prejudices, biases, and egotistical self-absorption that balk the other jurors, at least initially, from considering all of the facts in the case. In an effort to open the other jurors minds to the possibility of the boys innocence, Juror 8 takes on an almost aggressive role in trying to sway several of the jurors, particularly Juror 3, whom he goads and satirizes on occasion to try to show him his own potential for violence that subconsciously prejudices him against the youthful defendant (Cunningham 115). Juror 3 plays the role of the main antagonist and seems to relish the idea of sending the boy to his death. on with the virulently racist Juror 10, he represents the darker aspects of human behavior in that jury room, with a furious anger bubbling underneath the surface throughout most of the movie. Juror 3 fiercely maintains his verdict of guilty even in th e face of the other jurors conviction that the boy is innocent. In a narcissistic appropriation of the case in his own mind, Juror 3 equates the boy on trial with his own estranged sonhis prejudice is born from his alliance with the child who rejected him and the barely suppressed violence (116) that drives his behavior in the jury room. Ultimately, his belief in the boys guilt has little to do with the facts of the case. It is not until he feelsand acceptsthe shame of his own failings as a father that Juror 3 is able to vote logically as opposed to emotionally and irrationally. Juror 8 wins in the end because he is able to subtly manipulate the other eleven men into looking at the case in a similarly logical manner. In this way, he is also the most Machiavellian character in the film, astutely manipulating the other characters into deliberation by law-abiding their behavior carefully in the jury room. Juror 8 couches his decision in the language of negotiation, thus carefully av oiding an outright claim that he authentically thinks the boy is innocent He explained that he voted not guilty not because he is sure of the defendants innocence, but because he wished to discuss the case objectively, without prejudging the defendant. This minimized the convocations antagonism and alienation (Evirgen 181). Juror 8 employs his observational skills to determine each jurors underlying bias and motivation, and then uses that knowledge to marginalise his most vocal enemiesJurors 3 and 10and shift the dependence of in-the-middle jurors to himself as opposed to them (181). He systematically destroys each mans preconceived notions of the boy