Essay on Group Dynamics as Presented in the 12 Angry Men

Introduction

Before the beginning of a verdict deliberation session, the judge instructs a jury of 12 to exercise its mandate by following legal aspects and the presented testimonies to come up with a decisive ruling as per whether a boy accused of stabbing his father to death stand a charge of guilty or not guilty ("12 ANGRY MEN," 2012).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Setting and Constraints of the Verdict Deliberation Session

The meeting of the jurors is in a locked jury room and the jury is forced to operate in an extremely hot weather condition and have to bear with the constraints of time ("12 ANGRY MEN," 2012). The condition of the room is likely to be a test of jurors' patience during such a sensitive session (ProofHub, 2016).

Juror 7's Rush for a Quick Verdict

Juror 7, for instance, is in a particular rush to reach a verdict from the onset of the meeting. His suggests a majority-minority voting approach to quickly arrive at the verdict without consuming unnecessary time in talking, which will not change the state of the obvious verdict ("12 ANGRY MEN," 2012).

The reader is made aware that the crime committed calls for a first-degree murder charge and a death sentence of the guilty person before the first vote.

Juror 8's Dissent and Call for Discussion

All the jurors voted to charge the accuser as guilty except the 8th Juror.

Juror 8 believes that a person's life charge cannot be merely justified by exclusive voting without any justifiable discussions on the take (ProofHub, 2016).

All the 11 jurors looked at the 8th juror who dissented with amazement.

Juror 8 proposed a talk instead of mere voting to give a verdict on the boy. Juror 9 immediately support him, which means that he may have voted 'guilty' out of the normative influence of the other jurors. The enthusiasm of juror 8 may also be a factor as per his change of mind.

Juror 4 is persuaded by the woman's testimony for she claimed to have seen the murder happen through her window.

Doubts Raised Regarding the Testimonies

The old man's testimony raises doubt because he claimed that he heard the boy shout '"I'll kill you" despite the loud sound of a passing train ("12 ANGRY MEN," 2012).

According to juror nine, the old man's testimony may be a prompt to lie for recognition, attention, and need to be quoted at least ones in his life-time after a long period of abandonment.

Juror five changes his mind later during the talk after reasonably doubting the knife man's testimony.

However, after a lengthy discussion, it is never proven nor disproven that the boy did not yell, "I am going to kill you."

From the talk, juror 8 did not intend to provoke juror 3 into threatening to kill him but used him for his advantage after realizing he was getting worked up.

Conclusion

The movie clearly depicts group dynamics as a result of mixed emotions and attitudes during meetings. There are often pressures that erupt before getting to unanimous decisions in groups. The movie depicts dynamism aspects which are group forming, storming, and norming before reaching a unanimous decision (ProofHub, 2016). Positive group dynamics takes the effort of a leader, expected to take a firm position and be persuasive to convince the rest to understand his stand. A leader should be courageous to take risks and initiatives. All these skills are evident in the 8th juror during the entire meeting period ("12 ANGRY MEN," 2012).

References

12 ANGRY MEN. (2012, June 6). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngbEpZ0tTjI

ProofHub. (2016, February 23). Leadership lessons to learn from 12 Angry Men? The movie. Retrieved from https://blog.proofhub.com/leadership-lessons-to-learn-from-12-angry-men-the-movie-868e6f2a1b7f