12 Angry Men sociological analysis Essay

12 wroth Men focuses on a boards deliberations in a capital eat up gaffe. A 12- man Jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree send off trial of an 18-year- old Latino charge in the stabbing demise of his father, where a sinful verdict means automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut The defendant has a weak alibi a knife he claimed to project lost is found at the run into scene and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the male child fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote discredited only Juror No. Mr. Davis) casts a non guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after every last(predicate), the Jurors must entrust beyond a reasonable uncertainty that the defendant is guilty. As the deliberations unfold, the fiction quickly becomes a study of the Jurors complex personalities (ranging from wise, bright and empathetic to arrogant, invidious and merciless ), preconceptions, backgrounds and 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 pick forbidden is gotten through the beat period it took place in. Peoples views on race were made very publicly within the Jury. Many of them seemed to waste personal vendettas against different races. They deemed the boys Hispanic race to be slum and cypher more than that. A universal problem that is shown in several musical modes throughout the contain is personal prejudice getting in the way of Judg handst. Juror number tens reason for saying the accused boy was guilty was because he felt people from slums should not be trusted and that they kill one and another for fun.His prejudice lead him to detach against the boy initiall(a)y by voting guilty earlier in the film, before being convinced in voting not guilty. This was during the gracious rights era and all of that. We all kn ow blacks werent treated equally and this selects it apparent that it wasnt easy for any minority within the US. Theyd earlier lock them up and throw away the key than give them a fair trial. Tensions run high the second the Jury went into the private dwell to deliberate. It was a very hot day outside and the fan wasnt working nor would the windows open.No man wanted to spend more time than what they thought would be efficient to determine the verdict. Some even speak about their plans for right after, thinking it would be a sure prognosticate theyd be out of there soon with the whole night forward of them. They were wrong. From then on the film turned into an example straight out of a sociology textbook. Everyone didnt deviate from the norm of the group All miss one, Juror 8. The rest of the Jury was outraged and deemed him a radical. They could not weigh two things. angiotensin converting enzyme, that he voted not guilty, and second, hat he went against the group norm.He tried not one bit to conform. Rather, he stood up in tremendous fashion and presented his doubts to his fellow Jurors. Slowly 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 tor. Its so interesting when you bring a group o t 12 random people into a setting like a Jury and see what you come up with. All of these men, from different walks of life , they all brought something special to the table that was ital to their key decision.The sociological theory that tone of this film could easily fall under is the conflict perspective. At the very beginning, viewers can clearly see the tension is between the Jurors whom most have a personal prejudice against the boy for certain reason. Some Jurors hardly 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 pers on is not personally prejudiced against and individual or group, stereotypes can have them make discriminatory actions such as vote guilty.The reason most of the Jurors uninventive 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 often 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 he fact he could think the boy was innocent and even were ail at him for thinking that. As the film progressed the Jurors began changing their votes, eventually the roles were reverse Juror number 3 appear to be the one committing the degenerate act since it is revealed his own rea son for voting guilty is because 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.