Essay About Angry Men Reflection Paper And Jurors

12 Angry Men Reflection Paper
12 Angry Men Reflection Paper        The movie depicts the power of group decision making and the many factors that affect decision making in groups. Each person in the room had different temperaments and backgrounds which led to different decision making processes. The movie used external conditions such as temperature – the use of hot temperature and the consequent hot temper of the men in the room. This is contrasted with when the rain falls and the air conditioning finally goes back on and the men calm down and are a lot more level headed. They are more able to be rational and listen to one another during decision making in the second situation.         The men in the room had differing abilities, personalities, backgrounds and motivations in the movie in being in the jury. All of the men in the beginning were primarily indifferent, and perhaps even quite a bit peer pressured into voting the decision as guilty. They were not invested in the case and some even had “other things to do” such as seeing a sporting game in the case of one of the jurors. However, Juror 8 proves to be invested and spends time to convince the other men of his logic and to question the guilt of the boy. Juror 8’s personality starkly contrasts Juror 3’s and Juror 10’s, he is very patient and speaks with logic and respectfully. He invites the other men to join his cause and they are able to make significant progress by offering up other solutions or details that would not have been considered otherwise. For example, the old man remembers the bit about the woman not wearing glasses and Juror 5 offers up his expertise on using a switch knife.         In terms of background and abilities the jury has a wide range as well. Juror 5 grows up in the slums, whereas Juror 4 is a relatively wealthy stock broker. The other jurors have a variety of jobs as well. The jurors are also at different life stages, Juror 8 and Juror 3 show that although they have the same life experience in being a father, they express it very differently when it comes to decision making. Juror 8’s experience as a father makes him very patient and somewhat sympathetic to the case, whereas Juror 3 has his son that he is estranged from and he projects that onto the young boy in the case. The variety in background makes them not have very high homogeneity, and at first makes them not very cohesive. However, later in the movie because of these differences in backgrounds they are able to contribute different aspects to make the solution to the case in a very cohesive manner.