12 Angry Men

 

Introduction

In the play, the 12 Angry Men, a set of twelve jurors have to decide on a case in which an eighteen-year-old boy is accused of stabbing his father to death. A guilty verdict would lead to a death sentence, and their decision must be unanimous. At first, even of the twelve judges are convinced of the boy's guilt and vote guilty, but gradually through a heated discussion, they are swayed to support the not-guilty decision. Thus, arguably, based on the conduct of the jurors, humans are afraid of change as they are drawn to conformity.

Jurors are expected to make independent decisions based on their professional experience and expertise rather than for personal reasons. A case must be proven beyond any doubts through the evidence for the jurors to take a verdict. Conformity refers to the change of one's beliefs or behaviors as a result of factual or abstract peer pressure. In 12 Angry Men, conformity is dominant throughout the play. In the beginning, a few of the jurors are hesitant to make a decision, and slowly, they began to support the guilty verdict as a result of mounting pressure from their colleagues. Only one of the jurors voted for not-guilty based on the existence of some reasonable doubt while the rest conformed to the need to fit in within the opinions of the majority. Initially, the eleven judges appear prejudiced as their decisions are based on substantial evidence in support of the majority's ruling. For instance, Juror 2 states," I just think he's guilty. I thought it was obvious from the word 'Go.' Nobody proved otherwise (Boulanger-Mashberg 40)." Based on the statement, the judge does not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence presented shows that the boy is guilty as he is conforming to the influence of the majority.

Prejudice, fear, and weakness are likely to deter justice from being served. One juror stands on an independent decision alone as he examines and questions the evidence presented by the prosecutor and witnesses. The previously confident guilty team begins to sway and acknowledge the adverse consequence that their flawed choices would have upon the life of another person. Juror 8 asserts," It is difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this… It always obscures the truth." The juror acknowledges that based on the sensitivity of the issue, it is possible that the trust is being blocked by personal prejudice. He adds," no jury can declare a man guilty unless sure (Boulanger-Mashberg 34)." In this case, it means that prior to making the guilty decision, they should consider the extent to which the existing evidence proves so or otherwise.

Conformity in the jury room is a hazardous weapon. The jurors conform to the opinion of others to avoid appearing as deviant. The jurors only seek evidence that confirms their beliefs and expectations, thus ignoring the disconfirming evidence. For instance, the eleven jurors believed the boy was guilty, and they failed to recognize that it was impossible for the witness to hear the boy say," I'm gonna kill you" due to the noisy train (Boulanger-Mashberg 41). The evidence of the case would have been the basis of decision making since it would have disconfirmed their overall expectations, which had been overlooked initially.

 In conclusion, the jurors were driven by conformity in their decision making as they did not want to appear as deviant. At first, the majority won with a guilty verdict, but following a closer examination of the evidence, the single juror swayed all the other into a non-guilty verdict. Thus, it is evident that conformity obscures justice since jurors make a decision based on their personal judgment while ignoring confirming evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work Cited

Top of Form

Boulanger-Mashberg, Anica. Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men. Vic: Insight Publications, 2010. Print.

Bottom of Form