Legal Psychology

A Double-Edged Switch Knife

Sowmya Nagory
22010538
1016
 Sidney Lumet's classic film ‘’12 Angry Men" is a powerful exploration of the
psychology of jury decision-making. The film follows the deliberations of twelve jurors as
they attempt to reach a verdict in a murder trial. The jurors are initially divided, with eleven
of them voting guilty and one, Juror 8, voting not guilty. However, Juror 8's steadfast belief
in the defendant's innocence gradually sways the other jurors, and they eventually reach a
unanimous verdict of not guilty. This movie review delves into the legal psychology depicted
in "12 Angry Men," examining the group behaviours, cognitive processes, social dynamics
and eye-witness credibility that shape jury decision-making behaviours.

The film portrays the jury's decision-making process, heavily influenced by group
thinking and group polarization. Initially, the jurors succumbed to groupthink, suppressing
their doubts to conform to the majority. They prioritized consensus over critical thinking to
avoid conflict, leading to a shared identity and resistance to dissenting opinions. Group
polarization further exacerbated the situation, with the initially dominant view becoming
increasingly entrenched as the deliberation progressed. This could especially be seen with
Juror 3’s authoritarian approach in viewing it as a contest. The combination of groupthink
and group polarization compromised the jury's ability to consider all evidence objectively,
leading to an increased likelihood of accepting the majority opinion, even if it was not the
most accurate or just decision.

Cognitive biases play a significant role in shaping jury decision-making, as portrayed

in the film. Confirmation bias, anchoring bias, hindsight bias, and availability heuristic
impact how jurors perceive evidence and ultimately influence the trial's outcome.
Confirmation bias is evident in Juror 3's behaviour, leading him to selectively interpret
evidence that supports his belief in the defendant's guilt. Anchoring bias is demonstrated by
jurors latching onto the murder weapon as conclusive proof of guilt. Hindsight bias is seen in
Juror 10's dismissive attitude towards the defendant's alibi. The availability heuristic is used
by Juror 8 to challenge jurors' preconceived notions. Recognizing and mitigating these biases
is crucial for ensuring fair and impartial verdicts.

The jurors are also influenced by their own prejudices, such as their race, class, and
gender. One of the central themes of the film is the exploration of juror biases and how they
influence decision-making. Each juror brings their own background, experiences, and
prejudices into the deliberation room, which significantly impacts their perceptions of the
case. For example, Juror 3's bias stems from his strained relationship with his own son,
leading him to project his unresolved issues onto the defendant. Similarly, Juror 10's
prejudice against the defendant is rooted in racial stereotypes, as he harbours deep-seated
animosity towards people from the defendant's ethnic background. These biases hinder the
jurors' ability to objectively evaluate the evidence presented during the trial, highlighting the
inherent flaws in the jury system and the challenges of achieving true justice.

The film provides a compelling depiction of eyewitness testimony and its implications
for legal psychology. The portrayal of jurors grappling with the subjectivity, memory
distortion, and reliability of eyewitness evidence highlights the need for caution when relying
on such testimony. Juror 8's meticulous scrutiny of the eyewitness's testimony highlights the
importance of distinguishing between subjective perceptions and objective reality. By
challenging the eyewitness's account and presenting alternative interpretations of events,
Juror 8 prompts his fellow jurors to critically evaluate the evidence and consider the
possibility of reasonable doubt. Juror 8's re-enactment of the crime scene with an identical
switchblade exposes the limitations of memory and perception, as jurors realise the potential
for misinterpretation and memory distortion. Juror 8's probing questions reveal the
eyewitness's susceptibility to external influences and suggest the possibility of coercion or
manipulation. This scrutiny of witness credibility underscores the importance of safeguarding
against bias and ensuring a fair and impartial evaluation of testimony. Therefore, "12 Angry
Men" offers a thought-provoking exploration of eyewitness testimony from a legal
psychology perspective, illuminating the complexities of memory, perception, and group
dynamics in the interpretation of evidence. By dissecting the nuances of eyewitness
identification, the film underscores the need for caution and scepticism in assessing witness
credibility and highlights the importance of safeguarding against bias and subjectivity in the
pursuit of justice.

However, when observed from a strictly legal lens the outcome of this trial should
have been different. Juror 8’s purchase of the similar switch knife from the neighbourhood
certainly helped him prove his suspicion of reasonable doubt. However, that should have
been enough ground by itself for having the jury dismissed and having a mistrial recorded as
it goes against the duty of a juror. Further, working out how long it took the witness to get to
the door or conjecturing that the eye witness wears glasses were not facts presented during
the trial. The jury is merely meant to arrive at a verdict based on the evidence put forward
during the trial. The two best outcomes from a legal point of view therefore would be either a
hung jury and the chance of a retrial, or they arrive at a decision based on the evidence
presented and the 18 year old boy could appeal his conviction on the basis of an ineffectual
counsel since his court appointed defence lawyer failed to notice the eyewitness’ glasses or
the witness’ limp.

"12 Angry Men" offers a captivating exploration of legal psychology, illuminating the
intricate interplay of cognitive biases, social dynamics, and group behaviours in jury
decision-making. By dissecting the deliberation process and its underlying psychological
mechanisms, the film provides valuable insights into the challenges and complexities of the
justice system. It moreover sheds light on the need for legal psychology as a field to advance
social justice and provides a platform to explore the advantages and disadvantages of legal
psychology. Advantages include insights into jury deliberation, understanding bias, exploring
group dynamics, critical analysis of evidence, and promotion of dialogue. However,
disadvantages include the risk of bias confirmation, influence of personality dynamics,
pressure to conform, limited evidence scope, and potential for manipulation. Overall, the film
offers a nuanced examination of legal psychology, highlighting both the strengths and
vulnerabilities of the jury system in delivering justice.