12 Angry Men sociological analysis Essay

12 Angry Men focuses on a jurys deliberations in a corking shoot case. A 12- human control panel is sent to begin deliberations in the firstly-degree instruction execution trial of an 18-year- old Latino accuse in the stabbing death of his father, where a inculpative verdict means robotic death sentence. The case turn outs to be open-and-shut The defendant has a weak exculpation a knife he claimed to pack lost is found at the murder scene and several witnesses either hear screaming, saw the killing or the son fleeing the scene. El point of the jurywomans immediately vote felonious notwithstanding juror No. Mr. Davis) casts a non nefarious vote. At first Mr. Davis bases his vote more so for the rice beer of discussion after in entirely, the Jurors must consider beyond a causeable discredit that the defendant is guilty. As the deliberations unfold, the story speedily be make senses a study of the Jurors complex privateities (ranging from wise, bright as a yout hful penny(predicate) and empathetic to arrogant, lossd and merciless), preconceptions, backgrounds and inter coifions. That provides the backdrop to Mr. Davis attempts in convincing the separate Jurors that a non guilty verdict might be appropriate.A huge feel of the scoot is gotten through the date period it took define in. Peoples views on carry were made precise publicly at heart 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 worldwide problem that is shown in several ship provokeal through disclose the inject is personal prejudice getting in the way of Judg manpowert. 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 single and another for fun.His prejudice lead him to assort against the boy initially by vote guilty earlier in the movie theater, forward being c onvinced in select not guilty. This was during the civil rights era and all of that. We all know blacks werent tough equally and this makes it apparent that it wasnt piano for any minority within the US. Theyd alternatively lock them up and throw stunned the severalize than give them a graceful trial. Tensions run high the second the Jury went into the private room to deliberate. It was a very hot day outside and the devotee wasnt working nor would the windows open.No man wanted to spend more time than what they thought would be efficient to get hold the verdict. whatever even spoke round their plans for right after, thinking it would be a authoritative bet theyd be out of there soon with the whole darkness ahead of them. They were wrong. From then on the choose turned into an example straight out of a sociology textbook. Every angiotensin-converting enzyme didnt deviate from the norm of the free radical 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, hat he went against the aggroup norm.He tried not one bit to conform. Rather, he stood up in grand fashion and presented his doubts to his fellow Jurors. easily but surely his grand intention was working. He did not know for sure whether he was guilty or not guilty, but he had a sensible doubt and thats all closely what the justice system stands tor. Its so interesting when you bring a group o t 12 haphazard people into a setting identical a Jury and see what you come up with. All of these men, from different walks of animation , 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 competitiveness perspective. At the very beginning, viewers faeces clearly see the tension is amongst the Jurors whom close 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. plain if a person is not in person prejudiced against and individual or group, stereotypes mountain have them make discriminatory actions such as vote guilty.The reason most of the Jurors stereotyped the actions of the accused boys is because of socialization. The way of contagion 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 hind end 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 upset at him for thinking that. As the f ilm progressed the Jurors began changing their votes, eventually the roles were transposed Juror number 3 appear to be the one committing the deviant act since it is revealed his own reason for voting guilty is because of issues with his own son. One of the most of the essence(predicate) things I learned in find 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.