Posted at 10.06.2018
The jury of twelve furious men, entrusted with the energy to send an uneducated, teenaged Puerto Rican, tenement-dwelling guy to the electric seat for eradicating his father with a switchblade blade, are practically locked into a little, claustrophobic rectangular room on a stifling hot summer months day until they think of a unanimous decision - either guilty or not liable. The powerful, provocative film examines the twelve men's deep-seated personal prejudices, perceptual biases and weaknesses, indifference, anger, personalities, unreliable judgments, cultural dissimilarities, ignorance and concerns, that threaten to taint their decision-making capabilities, lead them to disregard the real issues in the case, and potentially lead them to a miscarriage of justice.
At the start of the play, eleven of the jurors believe that the boy wiped out his daddy. They summarize the engaging proof the trial:
A 45 calendar year old woman stated she witnessed the accused stabbing his daddy. She watched through her window as the city's commuter teach handed down by.
An old man living downstairs said that he noticed the youngster yell "I'll kill you!" accompanied by a "thump" on to the floor. He then witnessed a young man, supposedly the defendant, operating away.
Before the murder took place, the accused purchased a switchblade, the same type that was found in the murder.
Presenting a vulnerable alibi, the accused said he was at the films during the murder. He failed to remember the names of the videos.
Juror #8 picks aside each piece of research to persuade others. Here are some of the observations:
The old man might have invented his story because he craved attention. He also might not have noticed the boy's speech while the coach was passing by.
Although the prosecution stated that the switchblade was uncommon and different, Juror #8 purchased one just like it from a store in the defendant's community.
Some members of the jury make a decision that throughout a tense situation, anyone could forget the labels of the movie that they had seen.
The 45 12 months old woman experienced indentations on her nose area, indicating that she wore eyeglasses. Because her eyesight is in question, the jury determines that she actually is not really a reliable see.
Juror 1 (Foreman; trainer)Martin Balsam
Non-confrontational, Juror #1 provides as the foreman of the jury. He's serious about his authoritative role, and would like to be as good as you can.
Juror 2 (Lender clerk; inexperienced juror)John Fiedler
He is the most timid of the group. Juror #2 is easily persuaded by the ideas of others, and cannot explain the origins of his viewpoints.
Juror 3 (Upset gentleman with photo of son)Lee J. Cobb
In many ways, he's the antagonist to the constantly relaxed Juror #8. Juror #3 is immediately vocal about the intended ease of the case, and the apparent guilt of the accused. He's quick to lose his temper, and often infuriated when Juror #8 and other participants disagree along with his opinions. He feels that the accused is completely guilty, before very end of the play. During Act Three, Juror #3's mental baggage is revealed. His poor marriage with his own boy may have biased his views. Only when he comes to terms with this can he finally vote "not guilty. "
Juror 4 (Stock Broker)E. G. Marshall
A reasonable, well-spoken stock-broker, Juror #4 urges fellow jurors to avoid emotional arguments and take part in rational talk. He does not change his vote until a witness's testimony is discredited (because of the witness's apparently poor eye-sight).
Juror 5 (Grew up in the slums)Jack Klugman
This young man is anxious about expressing his impression, especially before the elder participants of the group. He grew up in the slums. He has witnessed knife-fights, an event that will later help other jurors form an judgment of "not guilty. "
Juror 6 (Painter)Edward Binns
Described as an "honest but dull-witted man, " Juror #6 is a residence painter by trade. He is slow to see the good in others, but eventually will abide by Juror #8.
Juror 7 (Sports activities fan)Jack port Warden
A slick and sometimes obnoxious salesman, Juror #7 admits during Take action One which he would have done anything to miss jury responsibility. He represents the countless real-life individuals who loath the idea of being over a jury.
Juror 8 (Architect; Man who doesn't know)Henry Fonda
He votes "not liable" during the jury's first vote. Referred to as thoughtful and gentle, Juror #8 is usually portrayed as the most heroic person in the jury. He's specialized in justice, and is initially sympathetic toward the 19-year-old accused. At the start of the play, when every other juror has voted guilty he is the only one to vote: "not liable. " Juror #8 spends all of those other play urging others to practice perseverance, and contemplate the facts of the case. A guilty verdict will lead to the electric chair; therefore, Juror #8 wishes to go over the relevance of the see testimony. He is convinced that there is reasonable uncertainty. Eventually he persuades the other jurors to acquit the accused.
Juror 9 (Nice aged gentleman)Joseph Sweeney
Described in the stage notes as a "mild, soft old man, defeated by life and waiting around to pass away. " Despite this bleak description, he is the first ever to trust Juror #8, deciding that there surely is not enough evidence to sentence the young man to fatality. Also, during Work One, Juror #9 is the first ever to openly acknowledge Juror #10's racist attitude, proclaiming that, "What this man says is very dangerous. "
Juror 10 (Prejudiced more aged gentleman with cool)Ed Begley
The most abhorrent member of the group, Juror #10 is openly bitter and prejudice. During Work Three he unleashes his bigotry to the others in a talk that disturbs the rest of the jury. Most of the jurors, disgusted by #10's racism, change their backs on him.
Juror 11 (Foreign watchmaker)George Voskovec
As a refugee from Europe, Juror #11 has observed great injustices. That is why he is purpose on administering justice as a jury member. He sometimes seems self-conscious about his overseas accent. He conveys a deep understanding for democracy and America's legal system.
Juror 12 (Advertising Executive; doodler)Robert Webber
He is an arrogant and impatient advertising exec. He is troubled for the path to be over so that he can get back to his job and his communal life.
In this movie, Juror 8 emerged as a leader because he profits esteem by other jurors. At the start of the movie, he is the only person to vote "not liable" during the jury's first vote. For the reason that he is convinced that there surely is a reasonable hesitation. He wanted to talk about seriousness of the circumstance without emotionally pre- judging the 18 year old youngster. He showed empathy by asking other jurors to imagine themselves in the boy's shoes awaiting death sentence, physically maltreatment by his father, growing up in the slums and etc. Juror 8 convince the other jurors that the young man isn't guilty by persuading them in a quiet manner. He stay calmed and talked over the evidence provided by the prosecution and finding defects in it. Juror 8 examined every fine detail of the data with the other jurors. He was delivering peaceful and used logical ideas about why he has question that the boy didn't kill his father. As Juror 8 always stay calm, polite and respectful, many of the other jurors are persuaded easier and favor to part with him alternatively than juror 3 and 10. He persuaded almost 1 / 2 of the jurors to vote not liable towards the center of the movie. He elaborated what every juror was striving to say and making recommendations to keep carefully the group emphasis even thought it was an extended and tiresome process.
Juror 8 focus on task oriented procedure. He will not seek status or ego enhancement. In this particular movie, he used a great deal of questioning skill and in a position to lead other juror to investigate the evidence in a concrete manner. He encourages the jurors to believe in dilemna: defendant's background, witness's trustworthiness, defending attorney's motives and etc. He asked jurors to put aside their personal biases, and stressing the importance of resuming their responsibility seriously. He aims for group success. As time passes, other jurors take up his strategies. Collectively, they synergistically find flaws in the trial's research and reached educated conclusions eventually.
Juror 8's interpersonal style is categorised as wide open receptive and objective. This command trait is incredibly effective in questioning other jurors' motives and their views . It helped draw out a competent jury in cases like this. Through the entire movie, he openly admitted that he did not know if the guy indeed wiped out his father. Instead, he solicited reviews from other jurors to make a precise decision. He encouraged others to go over their hesitation on the case and he was ready to receive opinions. He led other jurors to make decision predicated on facts and conscience, and not using rush common sense and personal prejudice.
Juror 8 has throughout this movie, at various occasion, demonstrated steadiness in clarifying the objective that is expected of the group. Where most jurors began with the idea that the task accessible was simply to determine whether the accused is guilty or not and founded their judgements on various reasons and thoughts, juror 8 clarified that the aim of the group was to determine if there exist realistic doubt with the data and arguments offered during the court hearing.
The first quarter-hour of the movie perceives Juror 1 exhibiting appealing leadership potential. In the beginning when the jurors first came back with their room following the deliberation in court docket, he was the first ever to organise the group. Juror 1 revealed many examples of task-oriented behavior. He organised ballots, organised seats arrangements and called for a start. These are example of arranging work activities to boost efficiency, and short-term businesses planning.
In the beginning, Juror 8 did not seem showing much of relations oriented behaviour, and for that reason did not seem to be to make a lot of an influence. A great many other jurors appeared to screen more extrovert personalities and socialized more among their peers. At the moment, Juror 1 already confirmed significant amount of relations-oriented behaviours. For example, he suggested a 5 minutes break in concern for the gentleman in the washroom. He also consulted with other jurors, asking them for his or her suggestions on how they wished to start, whether to go over or to take a quick vote first. He provided support and encouragement to Juror 12 when Juror 12 seems to lack the self confidence after he advised the idea for the 11 jurors to influence Juror 8 with their arguments why they think the guy is guilty.
Juror 8 revealed by far the most and most powerful change focused behaviours throughout the space of this movie. The first occasion of the is following the first vote where he together votes for a not liable verdict. When he was asked to clarify his decision he prompted the other jurors to view the case accessible in different ways. He articulated that it is a huge decision that they need to make since it's a life on the line and that he is uncomfortable to make such a conclusion in under five minutes. Juror 8 also took some risk and attempted a creative method of make a spot across to the other jurors. First he asked to view the knife again. If the knife was made available and all the other jurors were persuaded that the blade was quite unique, Juror 8 required out the same knife that he bought and manages to seize everybody's attention. Although running a switch blade blade is unlawful, he had taken this risk in return for a company foothold into challenging the pre-conceptions of the other jurors. Following this event, he gained a vote for not liable.
Juror #3 has been enlightened to be a juror via email like everyone else for this circumstance. As he's the most crucial counterpart to juror #8 we will have a closer look at him. In the next we will characterize him and point out important scenes. This will likely be backed by a glance at the body dialect and rhetoric. We will show inwhich leadership style juror #3 can be grouped and what faults have been done. In the long run we will explain how juror #3 could have avoided his inadequate authority style.
We will commence with characterizing juror #3 and describing his role within the jury. He is employed to having expert from his work, because, as the owner of a messenger service, he has 37 subordinates that listen to him. At the beginning he is directing this out and shows that he is pleased with his achievement. In the dialogue he behaves like he is at his work environment where he can order people around and has the authority to do so. The one time he shows admiration to anyone is when he's talking about his father and exactly how he used to call him "Sir". With this arena he also shows how preoccupied he is about the youngsters and for that reason also about the accused. Juror #3 feels that the junior shows no esteem nowadays and is also reminded of his own child. When his boy young was running away from a fight, he swore that he'd make a "real man" out of him. After a couple of years this tendencies has resulted in a attack where he got hit by his child. Since 24 months there is no romance between them which is very clear that the partnership to his child has effects on the decisions of juror #3.
From the beginning juror #3 has indicated disrespect, aggressiveness and ignorance, but all these behaviour were becoming worse when he saw that more jurorswere changing their thoughts plus more jurorswere openly demonstrating dislike towards him. The later it gets, the louder he speaks. Certainly this ends in the fact that other jurors like him even less. Juror #8 uses this and provokes him to isolate him even more. A crucial point in the play is when juror #8 is attacking juror #3 verbally. #8 calls him a sadist and being confronted like that he attempts to assault #8 literally. The other jurors keep him back so that he cannot reach #8. In this scene he also cries out that he will "kill" #8, which supports one the argument of juror #8 you don't always suggest what you say and don't necessarily act accordingly.
After this incident juror #3 will try to change his tactics a bit. He's still noisy and disrespectful, however in two situations he will try to impact other jurors while talking with them alone. In the first instance he tries to justify the attacking of juror #8 and in the second one he will try to convince everyone to call for a hung jury. His new behavior shows that he is noticing that his position within the group has transformed. He tries new methods in order to turn the situation around. It does not be successful because he has lost all trust on the list of other jurors.
In the finish he's the last of the jurors to plead guilty. At the first pressure to defend his quarrels he crumbles. A last outburst of his anger shows his concealed agenda. He is unable to change his brain and declare that he has been incorrect. Taking a look at the picture of him regarding his kid he realizes that he did wrong with him and he tears the picture apart. Immediately he regrets his action as it is probably the only picture of them collectively. The action allows him admit what to him appears like a beat. He pleads "not liable" as well. Finally he reduces crying on the table.
Juror #3 can be referred to best as an authoritarian/autocratic head. He will try to use his power to make the decision basically on his own. Of course this has to fail, because he does not have the authority to begin with and has not the ability to gain the expert as well. As mentioned previously he does not pay attention to other quarrels and positions except for his own. On top of that he is not willing to go over his own factors as well. When asked about his known reasons for pleading guilty, he says that the facts are obvious and can't be questioned. He sticks to this point right until the finish. Another aspect is that he does not support other juror even though they dispute for him. Here he demonstrates he will not trust other people of the jury to help him and he will not think he needs their help (at least not in the beginning). Rarely does he trust stated points, and when he does indeed, he only areas this in a brief sentence without detailing why and especially without adding any content or quarrels to the dialogue. The last indicate be mentioned here's that he tries to dictate the procedure and the techniques of the conversation within an autocratic way. The other jurors are screamed at, bullied and insulted by him to be able to pressurize them into his way of working. All of this is supported by his body gestures and his rhetoric.
There can be an observable development regarding his habit and communication during the movie.
First he appeared structured, quiet and self-confident. He talks with a normal tone of voice and his imitate and gesture are serious but not angry. After the first vote, when it turned out that not everyone helps `guiltyґ, his behavior changed. He got angrier which is expressed with his face and body gestures. Particularly when a juror changes the vote, he revealed humiliating patterns. When that occurred, there was always the same, non-verbal effect observable: He stands up, walks straight to the juror and stands at the jurors' back again, with his side on the sides, screaming and shouting at them. This implies that he tries to bring himself in the more robust position and awe the others by looking down at them. He's directly addressing them, seeking to make sure they are feel uncomfortable. That one behavior occurred 3 x during the movie.
His irritated and loud tone of voice made an appearance when he received the feeling that he lost the power over the situation, when jurors altered their vote or the others have better quarrels. It is hard for him to keep his countenance when he has weaker arguments and tries to get his self-confidence back in treating the others disrespectfully. That happens with laughing at othersґ quarrels or shouting at them. Especially juror #8, as he is the activator of the whole discourse itself, is the target of his disrespect. When juror #8 wanted to make a point, juror #3 performed `Tic Tac Feetґ showing naturally his disinterest. The situation between juror #8 and him heated up up first, when juror #3 attempts to re-enact the stabbing of the victim. That gesture proved plainly the dispute of the two and the attitude of Juror #3.
Now, the communication skills will be reviewed. The character used several phrases that support the statements about him made before. At one world he said to juror #2: `Be calm for another. ґ Thisjuror is an extremely timid and unconfident person. Responding to to him in that way shows that juror #3 has little knowledge of human dynamics. By speaking about the testimony he said once: `  and I say itґs not possibleґ. This undermines that he is self-centered and not open up for other ideas. His disrespect against juror #8 gets clear when he attended to to him by directing at him and saying: 'You over thereґ. This impolite communication exists during the complete time. Also when the previous man transformed his opinion, he asked: 'Whatґs the problem along?'
The verbal and non-verbal characteristics align with the authority style reviewedin the first area of the analysis.
In the next the reasons for the failing of juror #3 will be layed out. Therefore we will check if the different sources of inability fit to this situation.
One reason here is a poor persona. His inappropriate tendencies is based on his character. As mentioned early on in the movie, he previously a strict dad what may impact his characteristics as a grown-up. When a leader shows disrespect, little knowledge of human nature and no matter about others he'll fail sooner or later. No interest in various opinions, suggestions or the person itself creates less or no followership.
The second reason behind his failure is the poor communication skills of juror #3. As referred to before, he shows verbal and non-verbal lacks of an adequate habit. He doesnґt hear actively and doesnґt know how to solve at different personalities in a right way. He is unable to communicate effectively what is undermined by his unsuccessful string of argumentation. A innovator, who canґt persuade or affect his followers and canґt exhibit himself well, will are unsuccessful.
A innovator will also are unsuccessful, when he puts own interest above the hobbies from those he leads. The consequences are no trust, no confidence and therefore no loyalty. The leader views himself or herself as more advanced than everyone else, refusing to accept other quarrels. Juror #3 doesnґt create a connection to others and always insists on his point of view without even listening to several opinions. That is why it had not been easy for him to create a romance to other participants of the jury. He's not considering the needs of any person which is therefore unsuccessful along with his management style.
His arrogance and self-centered action made him standalone at the end of the movie.
The final reason he failed is because he previously no clear eye-sight. He voted for `guiltyґ, even when all the reality showed the opposite. Through the movie it got obvious that he's personally affected regarding the case and this contributes to situations where he got unconfident and insecure.
Now that the issues are clear we suggest how to avoid ineffective command.
Ineffective authority comes along with several poor traits and manners. The challenge is to avoid these and adapt the command style separately to the organization and the fans.
First of most: People are the key. A good knowledge of human being nature facilitates to be the first choice of a group. That is why an effective head is able to listen and react to his enthusiasts in a proper and sufficient way. The capability to treat different individuals correctly is necessary. `One leadership-style fits to allґ is not helpful. Therefore a good innovator can identify how able and self-confident a person is and react in the sufficient way. Just how of how a person behaves towards a team and duties requires different leadership styles. Needless to say, some enthusiasts need an autocratic command style. So specialist, as proved by juror #3, is not necessarily wrong. The problem was that it was too much and that this kind of control doesnґt fit to all or any of the jurors. The ability to show power and do it with respect is the main element. This trait is only going to lead to success when the first choice owns the admiration of the enthusiasts. Hence a leader donґt need to be `everybodyґs darlingґbut has to understand how he should come in particular situations and to particular kinds of people. An absolute problem is bullying within an organization. That is what juror #3 revealed in some of his behavior patterns and it generates a defense frame of mind of others. To avoid immediate failing, a leader should never bully the folks in the business.
To succeed in the relationship to the fans a leader should know how to talk. Influencing people and taking the vision of the business enterprise to them requires good skills and techniques in communication. Therefore to avoid inadequate communication a head should obviously, effectively and respectfully communicate to fans as well regarding the exterior environment of an organization.
Another point, to avoid inadequate authority, is to study from own mistakes as well as from flaws of others. Learning effects are valuable for a leader, adapting to situations and not repeating the same unsuccessful habit again and again. Realizing the current habit is unsuccessful and immediately changing it could have been the right solution for juror #3. Being a good head is also about actively avoiding incorrect decisions not no more than making the right ones. Analyzing the past and project it properly to the near future will create a good effect. Therefore it is also important that the first choice has learned what business the business is directly into avoid misguided work and lead his team correctly. A definite goal is necessary to give the route and creating trust of the followership. Aswell as for the first choice to appear to goals regarding performance.
An effective innovator is also able to keep his emotions and concerns in order. As opposed to that juror #3 demonstrated that he was personally affected and got an emotional break down by the end of the movie. Which should absolutely be avoided if a leader donґt want to reduce the trust, loyalty and respect of his supporters. A good head can react calmly in turbulent times as well when stress and tensions can be found, enjoy it was at end of the movie.