Surname 1

Student Name

Professor’s Name

12 Angry Man Analysis

Date

12 Angry Men Analysis

The movie “Twelve Angry Men” talks about twelve male jurors who came together in a

discussion room to analyze whether a boy is guilty of murdering his father. The eighteen year old

boy, from the ghetto, is being tried for the murder of his abusive father. A jury of 12 people sits

on the deliberation room to deliberate the fate of the boy. All the evidence seems to be against

the boy and if found guilty, he would be sent to die in the electric chair. The deliberation begins

with 11 against one vote for guilty. As the movie continues, one man who had a dubitatio the

guilt of innocence of the young boy wants to convince the other members to further interrogate

the facts presented. This paper is going to examine how juror 8 manages to convince his fellow

eleven jurors to change their minds. Juror 8 manages to stand alone from the get go with a

verdict of not guilty. As the bench of a murder hearing decide to consider the verdict, Juror 8

comes out as the lone opposing voice who declines to support a unanimous verdict of guilt. Even

though he had a dubitatio of guilt of the defendant, he insisted on re-examining the case in a

gradual manner which leads the other 11 jurors to change their minds.
 Surname 2

There are several perspectives regarding the theories of leadership that can be seen from

the movie but the underlying principle is basically the same. One of the main attributes of a

leader is to guide a group through phronesis and social influence towards a common goal. Juror

8 (Henry Fonda) shows key significant leadership principles and influence where the right

individual can lead group members to achieve a common goal. Influence is a key component of

leadership and Juror 8 was capable of influencing his fellow jurors to see from his perspective. In

the movie, Juror 8 portrays a character which earns him respect from the other members. He had

a different perspective from the remaining others and does not let the fact that he is minority

deter him from changing the opinion of others.

At the beginning of the movie, certain traits are evident and these include persuasiveness

and aggressiveness on the part of Juror 8. These traits label him as a leader to convince the

remaining eleven with eunoia. He indicated patience and positive attitude to match the readiness

level of the other jurors to change their minds. He was a good listener and this played a key role

in making his fellows to respect him. He showed the values of integrity, empathy and

seriousness. He voted not guilty to show empathy for the boy’s innocence.

Juror 8 was capable of sowing seeds of doubts in the minds of his fellow. This is another

way that he managed to convince them to change their minds. He actually asked several

challenging rhetorical questions. He identified faults in the prosecution’s case and also in the

commitment of the defense team but he allows his fellow jurors to make their own conclusions

regarding what they understand through kairos. He makes suggestions that keep the group

focused. Approaching the middle of the movie, he manages to convince almost half of the
 Surname 3

members to vote not guilty. They started seeing sense in his argument and even made enquiry

about what he thought regarding the case.

Juror 8 is strategic and influential. To get the discussion going, juror 8 proposes a deal

where he argued that if a secret ballot finds that at least two jurors favors the acquittal, the case

will be discussed further. If not, he will basically accept the view of the majority. This gamble

seemingly pays off as the elderly juror changes his vote while the remaining jurors commits to

their part of the deal. Being a lone dissenter is not an easy experience but that does not mean that

you are wrong. At the beginning, juror 8 only required one person to support his desire of

discussing the case further. He gradually manages to persuade others to listen to his arguments

and the momentum generates as they seem to want a re-examination of their doubts and see

additional loopholes. They achieved decorum and shifted the mood of the jurors.

Juror 8 made his case visual and compelling. According to John Kotter, when one argues

his case rightly to make people feel differently, their approach and behavior will basically

change. He suggested the creation of a compelling, surprising, preferable visual experience for

the case. He illustrated this by spectacularly throwing a duplicate knife on the table to show the

ubiquity of the seemingly exclusive weapon of murder. He used vicious ad hominen arguments

and continued to win the minds of the jurors.

Juror 8 applies expert testimony of the fellow jurors whose individual experience

contributes some genuineness to his arguments; the elderly juror who is able to comprehend the

motivations of a crucial witness, the man who dwelled close to the raised subway; the juror who

had seen the knife fights. Our preconceptions and experience normally contribute to how we

perceive the world. Juror 8 managed to competently induct the motivations of his colleagues,
 Surname 4

revealed them both to themselves and to one another. The jurors had a very big decision to make

and this was going to determine the fate of the boy. They would have to live with the decision

they make for the rest of their lives thus should not be taken lightly. Juror 8 acted ethically and

professionally to present the reality in the case.

In conclusion, Juror 8 basically various characteristics of a transformational leader. He

was focused on changing the views of the other jurors and brings a reasonable doubt in their

minds to aspect of innocence or guilt of the boy. He not only managed to convince them to vote

not guilty, he also managed to reveal the truth in his argument. He was so influential and had

good tactics that he applied to fellows. He didn’t blame anybody for their stands. He emerged as

a transformational leader and also a natural leader. He at last managed to convince the other

fellows to think and look deeply into their choice.

Bibliography

Dirks, Tim. “12 Angry Men.” Movie Reviews. April 2011 <http://

http://www.filmsite.org/twelve.html>