12 Angry Men Sociological Analysis

12 Angry Men focuses on a gores deliberations in a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused in the stabbing death of his father, where a censurable finding of fact means automatic death sentence.The case appears to be open-and-shut The suspect has a weak alibi a knife he claimed to consider lost is found at the murder scene and several witnesses all heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors straight vote iniquitous only Juror No.8 (Mr. Davis) casts a non guilty vote.At first Mr. Davis bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion subsequently all, the jurors must believe beyond a earthable doubt that the defendant is guilty. As the deliberations unfold, the story quickly becomes a study of the jurors complex personalities (ranging from wise, nitid and empathetic to arrogant, prepossessiond and merciless), preconceptions, backgrounds an d interactions.That provides the backdrop to Mr. Davis attempts in convincing the other jurors that a not guilty verdict might be appropriate. A huge feel of the convey is gotten through the time period it took place in.Peoples views on accelerate were made very publicly within the jury. many of them seemed to have personal vendettas against different races. They deemed the boys Hispanic race to be slum and nothing more than that. A universal line that is sh feature in several ways throughout the film is personal hurt getting in the way of judgment.Juror design tens reason for saying the accused boy was guilty was because he felt mess from slums should not be trusted and that they kill one and another for fun. His prejudice lead him to discriminate against the boy initially by choose guilty earlier in the film, before being convinced in voting not guilty.This was during the civil rights era and all of that. We all bop blacks werent treated equally and this requires it app arent that it wasnt easy for any minority within the US. Theyd rather lock them up and throw outside(a) the key than give them a fair trial. Tensions run high the second base the jury went into the private room to deliberate.It was a very hot twenty-four hours outside and the fan wasnt working nor would the windows open. No man valued tospend more time than what they thought would be efficient to square up the verdict. some(a) even spoke about their plans for right after, thinking it would be a sure bet theyd be out of in that respect soon with the whole night ahead of them.They were wrong. From then on the film turned into an example straight out of a sociology textbook. Everyone didnt bias from the norm of the chemical group All except one, Juror 8. The rest of the jury was outraged and deemed him a radical. They could not believe two things.One, that he voted not guilty, and second, that he went against the group norm. He tried not one phone number to conform. Rather, he stood up in grand fashion and presented his doubts to his fellow jurors. tardily but surely his grand scheme was working. He did not know for sure whether he was guilty or not guilty, but he had a reasonable doubt and thats all about what the justice system stands for.Its so interesting when you bring a group of 12 random people into a setting alike a jury and see what you come up with. All of these men, from different walks of spirit , they all brought something special to the table that was vital to their key decision. The sociological system that tone of this film could easily fall under is the conflict perspective.At the very beginning, viewers endure clearly see the tension is between the jurors whom well-nigh have a personal prejudice against the boy for certain reason. Some jurors simply expected that a boy from the slums would commit an act like that they were stereotyping that all people who come from slums are criminals.Even if a person is not personally prejudic ed against and individual or group, stereotypes can have them make discriminatory actions such as vote guilty. The reason most of the jurors pigeonhole the actions of the accused boys is because of socialization.The way of transmission was most likely through media crimes shown by television new or new papers are frequently from neighborhood of low economics standing. Deviance a topic I touched on earlier, is another sociological aspect that can be examined in this film. Deviance is a very relative term where depending on the group and situation, it varies.Juror 8 was the only that felt from the beginning the boy was not guilty. When the first vote most of the other jurors by the fact he could think the boy was innocent and even were upset at him for thinking that. As the film progressed the jurors began changing their votes, eventually the roles were reversed juror number 3 appear to be the one committing the deviant act since it is revealed his own reason for votingguilty is bec ause of issues with his own son.One of the most important things I learned in observing the sociological aspects of this film is how easy norms can change. The norms of eleven out of the twelve men voted guilty, changed entirely to guilty as the film came to a chose.