12 angry men

 Everyone’s attitude differ priorities matters insensitivity, individual belief

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 arguments 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 member
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 dewis say 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 dewis has to do more work to convince them as per the lady witness she saw the boy
stabbing his father through the windows of last 2 coaches of train so mr dewis calculated the
time required to pass 2 coaches and he gets time 15 seconds similarly according to old man
he s
But Mr Davis 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”. They 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 (IMDb.com, Twelve Angry Men).

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 devis 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