Anthony Panaroni

MGT-415W

Professor Stewart

4/27/24

Assessment of the 12 Angry Men

The movie at hand 12 Angry Men from the surface, tells the story of a man’s life hanging

in the balance of a jury’s decision. What you do not see are all the deeper meanings portrayed in

the movie. The jurors, 12 men from all different backgrounds, races, religions, and professions

came together and sat down in a room for an extended period which was not their intention. They

wished to all vote guilty and then be able to leave, yet one man challenges them and in doing so

uncovers a lot more than meets the eye. Juror number 8 doesn’t know if the man accused is

indeed guilty so he cannot vote so. This sets a motion of events that changes the entire room of

men and leads them to a different path.

Throughout 12 Angry Men, we see all the jurors change in some way. Many times,

repeatedly, and because of this there are a lot of silent motives and reasonings behind all of it.

One thing that is not hidden is the behaviors of these men. At the beginning of the movie, we see

Foreman #1 call for a straw vote. He offers information on how people approach this task. While

reminding them it may be approached however, they would like to show that he is impartial in

this situation. The point of how important their decision is as a collective is reinforced by him

before the straw vote. I found it most interesting in this scene that he reminds everybody that if

the man is found guilty, he could die by lethal injection. Foreman #1 words of choice here are

important because he goes on to later change his vote from guilty to not guilty therefore doing

his part to help find an innocent man not guilty in the case. Additionally, foreman #1 is standing
at the end of the table with his hands connected and then proceeds to move them while

responding to the others hinting, that he does not want to anger the men with what he says. This

factors into his role which seems to be of an authority figure which is shown time and time again

as the mediator between the 12 men. After the initial idea of a straw vote, several jurors hesitated

due to uncertainty of opinion. When the vote is cast some put their hands up slower than others

which just goes to show they are unsure of what to vote. At the end of the straw vote the people

unsure ended up voting guilty. This is later changed after one juror made them start to question

their decision. Why did they vote guilty in the first place then? The answer is simple they went

with most of the other voters. Often the idea of persuasion is obscured. You don’t have to

convince someone of something if a group of others already believes it. This leads to them

joining into the belief and starting to share it themselves. This is the idea of peer power which

makes people give into an idea or belief in something if a peer or someone close already has it.

To elaborate on this more if I were the foreperson I would have asked people individually if they

wished to straw vote or held an anonymous vote to see if a straw vote should be held. This seems

to be a way to ensure confidence between jurors without there being any issues from jurors who

voted oppositely.

Throughout the movie, there are many times when people are trying to convince each

other and vice versa this can be said when one juror says that they should all be trying to

convince the man who voted not guilty. It was then mentioned that it should be juror number 8

who convinces them the boy is not guilty. The 12 men end up relying on both strategies

unknowingly as they just start talking and end up losing sight of who is trying to convince who

of what. The group should have had someone to keep them on track with a strategy they chose. If

it were me, I would have persuaded the other jurors of his innocence by making them question
everything. Every aspect, every minute detail, and every piece of evidence submitted and

acknowledged. There are so many possible ways things can be perceived wrong and turned

against you such as “I am going to kill you” A phrase that is said out of anger with little intention

behind it. Juror Number Eight's method proved to be successful, and I think he was trying to

show the other men that all is not as it seems no matter how it is presented to you. He may have

been also trying to make them question everything as well because who can say they have all the

answers, no one. Juror number 8 understood this and saw past the facade the prosecutors put on.

This is perhaps one of the best forms of persuasion, the method of questioning it all until

someone sees your side.

All 12 of the men had noticeable differences as the film went on, we saw each of theirs.

Multiple times there was an instance where juror number 8 used those against them. Most

noticeably when juror number 8 got one of the others worked up and said, “I am going to kill

you.” This was an important example of a different personality being used in a positive way to

help persuade others. It slowly started to make a little headway every time, and with every

argument, it gained more momentum. I would have used each of these different personalities to

resonate with the person to which they belonged. If you can reach them on a level, they

understand then you can show them your side and belief. This is a way that persuasion works

best.

With my personality style, strengths, and weaknesses included there could be a few ways

to approach dysfunctional styles. Juror number 10 was the talker who always had something to

say throughout the film. In working around that fact, I would simply just talk more than him to

get him thinking. When I make my points, I will make them clear and concise. A talker

recognizes and understands another talker and because of that can relate to them which may help
sway their decision. If my points are put in a way that he can understand, then he will start to see.

As for a heckler juror number 7 was quite combative. He saw his point of view only and shot

down any ideas and suggestions that could be said otherwise. He stood his ground but was

unwavering in his efforts to understand the other arguments for not guilty. The juror only

concluded not guilty when he saw that everyone else was voting not guilty, he bandwagon on.

This is a type of style that must be talked out in intense argument, only then can you get through

the dysfunctionality of their style of personality. If you give them the irrefutable facts, they can

no longer disagree with you and be combative. While we have those who are loud, we have those

who are also quiet. In the film juror number 5 was the most silent of them all, only speaking up

when he was antagonized into defending the slums from which he came. Other than this outburst

he remained quiet except in times of voting for which he switched from guilty to not guilty. This

is a personality that I would slowly get involved. To encourage him I would ask him simple

questions or his opinion on stuff first. This would help facilitate his participation by allowing

him to feel comfortable. Finally, we have the side tracker who was juror number 8. I say this

because while he is the one who originally persuaded all the others to see the defendant was not

guilty, he still sometimes seemed to get off track. That juror had a few points that seemed off

track, but he tied them into a great defense. It was an uncommon idea of sidetracking that turned

out to be very productive in the end. It is because of this man that the defendant walks free, he

took the time to think and understand the case in a way that others had not. The best example of

this is about the old man walking to the door which claimed to be 15 seconds and when the man

reenacted it was 41 seconds. This sidetrack reenactment helped sway those in the room.

In the end, there is not much left to be said. I do not think there is anything else I would

have done differently if I were on the jury after seeing the outcome. The way that juror number 8
handled the case and how he used his knowledge and idea of questioning the case led to a good

outcome. It is because of this that I feel there is nothing else left. Since I knew this would be the

outcome, I would change nothing. If we know the outcome of something, then there is no reason

to change our argument if the outcome is already what we want. That said I believe there are

many things that if were different would still yield the same result as all the jurors changed in

some way during the film despite their dysfunctional styles.