12 ANGRY MEN

Story

12 Angry Men is a story of the murder trial of an 18-year old boy from a slum, charged with
stabbing his father to death. It is about a jury of 12 different individuals from distinct
backgrounds given the task of deciding unanimous whether the boy is guilty or not.

12 Angry Men” focuses on a jury’s deliberations in a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is
sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused in
the stabbing death of his father, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence.
The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to
have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the
killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror
No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis’ bases his vote more so for the
sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant is guilty. As the deliberations unfold, the story quickly becomes a study of the
jurors’ complex personalities (which range from wise, bright and empathetic to arrogant,
prejudiced and merciless), preconceptions, backgrounds and interactions. That provides the
backdrop to Mr. Davis’ attempts in convincing the other jurors that a “not guilty” verdict
might be appropriate

12 Angry Men is a 1957 American courtroom drama film directed by Sidney Lumet

This courtroom drama tells the story of a jury of 12 men as they deliberate the conviction or
acquittal of an 18-year old defendant[note 1] on the basis of reasonable doubt, forcing the jurors
to question their morals and values. 12 Angry Men explores many techniques of consensus-
building and the difficulties encountered in the process among this group of men whose range
of personalities adds to the intensity and conflict. It also explores the power one person has to
elicit change. The jury members are identified only by number; no names are revealed until
an exchange of dialogue at the very end. So we have identify each juror by no only The film
forces the characters and audience to evaluate their own self-image through observing the
personality, experiences, and actions of the jurors.

In the overheated jury room of the New York County Courthouse, a jury prepares to
deliberate the case of an 18-year-old impoverished youth accused of stabbing his father to
death. The judge instructs them that if there is any reasonable doubt, the jurors are to return a
verdict of not guilty; if found guilty, the defendant will receive a death sentence. The verdict
must be unanimous.

As briefly mentioned in the introduction the film deals with the deliberations of a jury in a
capital murder case. The person accused is a young boy who is being charged with the
murder of his father. After the oral pleadings of the lawyers the jury is asked to retreat and
decide the verdict. The twelve jurors have to agree on the verdict unanimously which means
they all have to vote for either “guilty” or “not guilty”. At first the case seems to be open-
and-shut: the defence cannot provide a strong alibi and there are various witnesses who claim
to have heard screams, seen the boy running away and even seen him stabbing his father.
Also the knife which the boy claims to have lost is found near the murder scene. From this
short court room scene the film switches to the jury room where the rest of the film is set.

12 jury members are all from different background they don’t know each other and they are
from different profession.

After some unimportant small talk and a refreshment break the jurors (only men) gather
around the table and take a preliminary vote The 12 men seem eager to get going with their
decision as they take their seats. Some of them seem to think they'll decide pretty quickly,
because it's obvious the kid is guilty. But the result was different – eleven “guilty”, one “not
guilty”. Juror 8 (we are never given the names of the jurors) played by Henry Fonda says he
cannot vote for guilty because he has reasonable doubt.

At first all other jurors do not understand juror 8 and want to force him to change his
opinion.  but he doesn't want to send a boy to his death without talking about it first. He says
he don’t know whether the boy is guilty or not but he simply cant send him to electric chair
without clearing the doubts

Then the argument starts, other members pointed out various interesting things like He was
seen fleeing the scene just before his dad was found with a knife in his chest by police. The
kid also claimed he was at the movies all night but couldn't name which movies he'd gone to.
a female witness claims that she saw the killing take place, the kid has such a long track
record of antisocial behaviour that it's easy to believe he committed murder, A couple of the
jurors say the kid must be a criminal because he came from a slum, one of the members
claims the knife he used is pretty unique that was purchased by the kid on the same day of the
murder. But The kid claims that the knife fell through a hole in his pocket while he was on
his way to the movies.
Then Mr Davis said that he's suspicious of the lawyer who was defending the kid on trial. He
thinks that the lawyer let too many things go by in his cross-examination of the witnesses.
For him, the defence attorney is either incompetent or corrupt. He reminds the jurors that
there was only one witness and one person who heard what happened, and they were never
properly cross-examined. He pulls out a knife exactly like the one the boy used and places the
two side by side.

He raised some serious questions like how it is possible to hear sound of screaming and other
things when the train is passing nearby.

After his logical points some other members starts to change their minds from guilty to not
guilty but some members are too convinced to their thought process that they were not ready
to understand anything.

So Mr Davis has to do more work to convince them.

But by presenting his reasons of doubt juror 8 manages to convince one after the other that
sentencing this young man to death by the electric chair is not the right decision. He
questions the evidences and all the jurors’ prejudices and weaknesses in order to point out
that “it is possible” that he is “not guilty”. After spending the afternoon in this rather small
and gloomy room the jurors finally unanimously decide on the verdict “not guilty”. The jury
goes back into the courtroom and clears the accused of all charges. In the final scene we see
the jurors leave the court building, only two of them exchange their surnames and then also
part to go back to their lives.

Lessons

Empathizing

Right from the beginning Mr Dewis’s character tries to walk into the boy’s shoes what it must
have been like to live in a slum and grow up in a violent environment. Instead of rushing to
judgement, potentially a prejudiced one; he tries to see things from the boy’s perspective. This
is a great example of empathizing with others. The same holds true during meets and
discussions.

Try to find the reason behind why people are saying what they are saying. Walking into
others’ shoes will allow you to feel how a decision is likely to affect others and how it may
impact things in the long-run. Empathizing makes you see the bigger picture more clearly.
 Choosing right over easy!

The character of Mr Devis could have easily voted ‘guilty’ when the rest 11 jurors did the
same. But he saw what was at stake — the life of a potentially innocent boy. So, he decided
to go with the difficult path which meant not only standing against the rest 11 members, but
also changing their behaviour without disrespecting their opinions. The easy path would have
been avoiding hours of difficult and long conversations by voting ‘guilty’. So, during
discussions, try to come out of the shell, break free of our comfort zone, and take a stand!

 Tone matters

After watching 12 Angry Men, I realized that the most influential jury members who were
able to make a point were the ones who maintained a steady and calm disposition throughout
the discussion. Those who kept yelling, lost their temper, shouted, and attempted to impose
their views and arguments were the ones to soon lose their persuasive ability. Short-tempered
and aggressive folks did make an impact — just not the one they really wanted to. In order to
be heard, you don’t need to be aggressive. Assertiveness, right tone of voice, and putting your
arguments with conviction is the way to make a point.

 Having a different perspective

People vs. sheeple. Where do you belong? I know the latter is not a standard dictionary word,
but you get the point, right! Mr Devis delivered an outstanding performance depicting how
he chose to have a different opinion when the odds were 11:1. Don’t be a sheep, blindly
following others’ opinions without putting your analytical abilities to use. Most people fail to
put forward their views out of fear of ridicule or rejection. Try to avoid herd behaviour. Gather
the courage to get your message through, even if it means standing against the ridicule of
others.

 Giving time to important decisions

When the jury members gathered, eleven of them just wanted to get it over with. So they
chose to do the easy thing of voting the boy guilty without offering any insight into the matter.
They didn’t want to invest any time and intellectual efforts. If a decision is important, devote
plenty of time. In the movie, the life of a boy was at stake. Find out what the stakes are and
accordingly plan discussions and move ahead with conversations!

 Nudging others

You cannot impose your views. That’s taken! Mr Devis realized this, which is why at no point
he tried to force anyone into voting ‘not guilty’. He used subtle techniques to nudge others.
Trying to get your views accepted by others involves dealing with emotions and social
interactions; not to mention the ever-persistent desire of people to resist change. The sign of
good leadership is finding ways to nudge others using subtle techniques instead of pushing
them. Having an emotional insight combined with the ability to reason is what makes a good
leader

 Be a good listener
In a movie we can see many of the members are not good listener and they end up
with changing their mind because of their ignorance

 Intellectual laziness is more dangerous than ignorance

Every jury member was well qualified but initially they all taken this case very lightly
one jury member even said this case is crystal clear and no need to discuss anything
so lets vote for guilty so I can go to watch baseball game. So we can say ignorance is
not a defence but intellectual laziness is crime

 Escalation of Commitment - staying with a decision

even when there is clear evidence that it’s wrong. At the end of movie when
everybody was convinced for not guilty only one member stands alone saying I don’t
care whether I am alone or not, it’s my right and you can’t force me.
Deep down he knows he is not doing good thing but his ego was the main problem
 Focus on rights – this movie revolves around the most fundamental right that is right
to live, in the movie the young boys life was at stake that’s why Mr Davis wanted
discussion and not the arbitrary decision
In our life and business we should be very conscious about our rights and rights of
others also. While taking any decision we should take care that our decision should
not violate any right of any person