Introduction
The movie “Twelve Angry Men” is considered one of the best court dramas in the history of world cinema. It is a story about making the correct decision and the ability to reflect. A New York court is hearing the case of an 18-year-old immigrant who, according to the prosecution, stabbed his father to death. The decision may be a death sentence or release in case the jurors decide unanimously. “Twelve Angry Men” is interesting to analyze from the perspective of decision models and the importance of dialogue and potential hidden traps in the decision-making process.
Plot
Twelve jurors have heard the case of a Puerto Rican teenager in court. They are expected to pass a verdict on his guilt or innocence in the murder of his father. They need to confer and come to a unanimous opinion. The prosecution has irrefutably proved the boy’s guilt in court, so almost all of the jury believes he is guilty (Lumet, 1957). One of them, Juror 8, thinks over the circumstances of the case and strikes up a discussion with the others (Lumet, 1957). Overall, Juror 8 succeeds in convincing the others to decide in favor of the defendant.
Decision Models
There are several decision-making models; in the movie, the audience can distinguish a model based on values and a rational one. The latter proceeds from the fact that the initial information is complete and undistorted. The thinker’s guide to analytic thinking. The problem should be precisely defined; the facts do not contradict each other. In other words, rationality is the outcome of appropriate deliberation.
This is the model that Juror 8 tries to follow, showing high-quality inquiry and advocacy. He is not entirely sure of the youth’s guilt, accompanied by doubts about how serious the evidence of his guilt was subjected to during the trial (Lumet, 1957). It seems to him that the free lawyer did not take the case seriously, and the totality of circumstantial evidence is not so convincing as to make a verdict fraught with a death sentence on their basis (Lumet, 1957). Thus, Juror 8 combines logical constructions with sharp emotional attacks.
At the same time, the facts play far from the leading role in making a final decision. Other jurors, in contrast to Juror 8, proceed from inner convictions. Their decision-making model is built on values, so they make decisions based on personal beliefs and priorities. For example, first, the jurors make attempts to convince Juror 8 that they are right. Some jurors need to finish this case as soon as possible and go to a baseball game (Lumet, 1957). For the second, the accused boy cannot be anything but a murderer because he comes from a ghetto (Lumet, 1957). The third sees in the defendant his ungrateful son, while others do not care at all. Thus, they do not have their own opinion; they only take the side of the clear majority.
The influence of prejudice on human decisions and latent motivation is demonstrated during the plot development. According to Iyengar (2011), three principal adverse outcomes are resulting from multiple choice. First, it is delaying choosing; the second is the tendency to make worse choices; the third is that people are used to making less satisfying decisions (Iyengar, 2011). All these aspects are reflected in the juror’s decision-making. They try to facilitate the process by relying on a human tendency to make mistakes, exaggeration and frivolity, fear of admitting one’s own mistakes, and a propensity to follow the initially adopted theory.
In addition, the jurors have no way of making empirical judgments based on sensory contemplation about the murder. There are some explanations of why people’s decisions are easy to manipulate. According to Ariely (2008), intuition and decision-making have certain limitations. People tend to think that they can control them, whereas, in the real-life world, this is an illusion of making decisions (Ariely, 2008). However, due to effective advocacy, in the end, it becomes transparent that the investigation was carried out exceptionally carelessly.
Dialogue
“Twelve Angry Men” is one of the famous examples of a film built entirely on dialogue. Jurors throughout the film are trying to decide the fate of the convict in one conversation; all alterations are limited to words. First of all, the completeness of dialogue is achieved by the careful selection of twelve characters. Each character is made up of behavior patterns, motives, and personal characteristics. Boncompagni (2019) claims that “the dynamics of the dialogue among the jurors is itself shaped by stereotypes and the will to neutralize them” (p. 170). For instance, by the twentieth minute of the film, the audience already has an idea of the jurors, although the story has not been told (Lumet, 1957). Therefore, the basic unit of decision-making in the film is dialogue.
Concerning the effectiveness of dialogue, the movie presents the opposite situation, when the prejudices prevail. Heffernan (2012) claims that a constructive conflict requires opposite positions of the parties with different backgrounds, ways of thinking, and experiences. According to Sigman (2017), the group can reach a consensus even in such circumstances. Despite these factors, dialogue can be effective if there is the ability to be patient and engaged (Heffernan, 2012). On the contrary, ineffective conversation concludes by broadcasting controversial statements. Overall, towards the end of the film, the audience sees acknowledges and eliminates the impact of biases on objective judgment.
Concerning hidden traps that plagued the jurors, they rely on information supporting the youth’s guilt. Jurors, except Juror 8, misstate an issue, declaring stereotypes such as the prosecutor spoke more convincingly than the lawyer and that the witnesses would not lie (Lumet, 1957). To overcome this trap, Juror 8 does not persuade anyone but only makes them look at this situation differently, consistently removing all the nuances. Other characters convince themselves because they begin to think not only about hunger, thirst, stuffiness, or baseball but also that their voice was given to them for a reason.
Conclusion
The movie “Twelve Angry Men” addresses the global problems of the judicial system, relying on the issues in the jury’s work, racial prejudice, and social inequality, which were described in the dialogues of the characters. The interaction of these people is strengthened by their conflicts, ways of putting pressure on each other, and defending their position. The conflict consists of defense and attack, persuasion and cultivation of doubts. Reflecting on a personal application, the film made me think of responsibility for words spoken. Few people consider the consequences of their decisions, mainly when these outcomes do not concern them personally.
Moreover, the film also taught me to be brave and defend my opinion, being in an absolute minority. Additionally, the quality of leadership depends on discussion skills. The picture shows how important freedom of speech is and respect for people trying to come to joint conclusions and solve a complex problem. Thus, “Twelve Angry Men” shows people with different professions, social statuses, ages, and origins but still able to make unanimous decisions.
References
Ariely, D. (2008). Are we in control of our own decisions? [Video]. TED. Web.
Boncompagni, A. (2019). Hinges, prejudices, and radical doubters. Wittgenstein-Studien, 10(1), 165-181. Web.
Heffernan, M. (2012). Dare to disagree [Video]. TED. Web.
Iyengar, S. (2011). How to make choosing easier [Video]. TED. Web.
Lumet, S. (1957). 12 Angry Men [Film]. Orion-Nova Productions.
Sigman, M. (2017). How can groups make good decisions? [Video]. TED. Web.