12 Angry Men sociological analysis Essay

12 Angry Men focuses on a dialog boxs deliberations in a capital murder case. A 12- reality gore 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 guilty verdict means automatic death sen goce. The case appears to be open-and-shut The suspect has a weak alibi a knife he claimed to produce lost is found at the murder scene and several witnesses ein truth heard screaming, saw the killing or the male child fleeing the scene. Eleven of the Jurors right away right to vote guilty only Juror No. Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis bases his vote more so for the interest of discussion after every, the Jurors must believe beyond a just doubt that the defendant is guilty. As the deliberations unfold, the story quickly becomes a remove of the Jurors complex person-to-personities (ranging from wise, bright and empathetic to arrogant, hurtd and merciless), preconceptions, backgrounds and interactions. That provides the backdrop to Mr. Davis attempts in convince the other Jurors that a not guilty verdict might be appropriate.A huge feel of the depiction is gotten through the time distri exclusivelyor point it took place in. Peoples views on race were made very publicly within the Jury. Many of them turn overmed to have personal vendettas against different races. They deemed the boys Hispanic race to be slum and nothing more than that. A commonplace problem that is shown in several ways throughout the film is personal prejudice getting in the way of Judgment. Juror number tens antecedent for saying the accused boy was guilty was because he felt people from slums should not be trusted and that they kill champion and other for fun.His prejudice lead him to discriminate against the boy initially by voting 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 know blac ks werent treated equally and this makes it app bent that it wasnt uncomplicated for any minority within the US. Theyd rather lock them up and micturate away the pigment than give them a fair trial. Tensions run senior high the second the Jury went into the private room to deliberate. It was a very savoury 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 spoke close to their plans for right after, thought it would be a sure bet theyd be out of on that point 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. Every atomic number 53 didnt take leave from the norm of the 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, hat he went against the gro up norm.He tried not one bit to conform. Rather, he stood up in grand fashion and presented his doubts to his dandy 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 on a lower floor is the conflict perspective. At the very beginning, viewers pile clearly see the tension is between the Jurors whom most 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 criminal s. Even if a person is not personally prejudiced against and mortal or group, stereotypes can 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 infection was most likely through media crimes shown by television new or new papers are frequently from neighborhood of low political economy 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 hypothesise 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 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.