It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. As the jurors leave, Juror 8 helps the distraught Juror 3 with his coat. The scenario of the decision-making process in this movie is a complicated context, where cause-and-effect relationships are discoverable but not immediately apparent to everyone. Subsequently, the jurors slowly changed their vote to innocent on the basis of doubt. Despite its invigorating content, the movie made very little money and was virtually unknown to the vast public for decades.
The role of the foreman is usually for the most experienced person in this field or the first jury or for anyone who claims the desire and gets accepted by all. Juror Three is focused on getting the case over. This is how their attitudes toward their job and resulted in their behaviour. As the film enters the jury room, the frame dissolves and eventually the inside of the jury room is revealed, a dysfunctional fan is immediately seen by viewers, this is. Their verdict is now a solid not guilty. The film has so much tense and so much detail that makes the movie more powerful with more techniques that the actors, writer and director wasted there precious time doing this acclaimed film. In this case, their task was to decide a verdict of guilty or not guilty for the boy on trial.
Unfortunately, leaving our prejudices outside the court room door is near impossible. This kind of thinking leads to more external attributions—it was the way the boy was treated in life, not something inherent about the boy or his character. We hear neither prosecutor nor defense attorney, and learn of the evidence only second-hand, as the jurors debate it. In 2011, the film was the second most screened film in secondary schools in the United Kingdom. Four assumes that if the kid bought a switch knife that appears the same as the murder weapon, it must be the same knife. Even before the deliberation talks begin it is apparent most of the men are certain the boy is guilty. Juror 3 used the experience of his own son and applied it to the boy.
If we analyze the Johari grid of each juror we see a large hidden area in the case of all of the men. You have sat here and voted guilty with everyone else because there are some theater tickets burning a hole in your pocket. The others are amazed, and Juror 8 gets a little more support for his Not Guilty verdict. Asking us to invoke our values and assumptions, and find the truth amongst the evidence presented. Juror 8 reminds the rest that personal prejudice can cloud judgments as they retake their seats.
During the course of the debate within the jury room Juror 8 summarises the evidence presented and the conclusions drawn by his fellow jurors, by asking questions like, what do we know about that? Jurors 5, 6 and 8 question the witness's claim to have seen the defendant fleeing 15 seconds after hearing the father's body hit the floor since he was physically incapable of reaching an appropriate vantage point in time, having once suffered a stroke. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. The movie illustrates that everything is not what it appears to be. Each one has a very different characteristic than the next, but each contribute to the stories plot line equally. The members of the jury from the film run the gamut of communication and personality styles.
The way we present ourselves to others matters From the reaction to the foreman's tailored suit, to the discussion of the old man's shabby suit, it is clear that these jurors recognize the need in their society to pay attention to the way others see you. The boy went out of the house and bought an unusual switchblade knife, the only one the storekeeper says he had in stock. They smoke, they sweat, they swear, they sprawl, they stalk, they get angry. He cuts off his story as he gets more emotional. These men have never talked before. It formed a perfect conflict that led group members device by two sub-group, vote guilty group and vote not guilty group, seat back for digging deep into the provided evidences to make sure if they are worthy of declaring the boy guilty of the charge. The named Juror 8, played by , 28th.
It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt. This is the reason I came here. He wants the kid to get a fair hearing in this jury room, for once in his life. When a begins, it is likely that Juror 7's baseball game will be cancelled. But one of the other jurors brings up the fact that the woman wore glasses and wouldn't have had time to put them on before looking out her window.
Brick by brick, word by word, a community was built around these twelve men. Unfortunately, the incorporation of diversity can be wrought with challenges. Many times it may be difficult for a jury to come to such a significant conclusion. He's slipping through our fingers! Since the court hearing are not shown, viewers have no options but to focus on each of the jurors opinions and points. Compared to other jurors, Henry was trying to create a discussion rather than an argument.