After the jurymans go to the meeting room to discourse and get at consensus whether the immature male child is guilty or non. we get to see different personalities combined to organize a group to decide the issue. Initially 11 out of 12 jurymans voted in favor of male child being guilty. Therefore. first outstanding thing I noticed was that there was deficiency of strong belief about the criticalness of the issue. Peoples had already formed their opinion before they stepped into the meeting room. They believed the testimonies of several eyewitnesses and the statements of the prosecuting officer taking to the decision that the male child was guilty. In the beginning. 11 out of 12 jurymans were non sensitive about the earnestness of the determination they were traveling to do and the impact it was traveling to hold on the immature boy’s life. They were non ready to blow any clip over discoursing that issue because they had already perceived the immature male child guilty based on his background and offenses he committed before every bit good as the jurors’ old experiences in life.
When the supporter in the film showed resistance to hold the boy’s guilt. so the remainder of the people became frustrated since they had to come to consensus to give a opinion. This showed the strong belief and contemplation of the supporter to the criticalness of their nonsubjective as jurymans. It was besides apparent that being a minority does non intend you have to travel majority’s manner under the influence or force per unit area of bulk against your want. After listening to the supporter. juryman started altering their original guilty determination one by one. This showed their willingness to alter their stance holding been convinced by the protagonist’s logic. Protagonist stuck to the practicality of the state of affairs and logic in order to convey the possible defects in the testimonies of the oculus informants by reproducing the state of affairss and verifying the possibility of genuineness of the testimony.
In making so. he influenced the members of the group that there are blanks in the testimonies. and the benefit of uncertainty demands to be given to the male child when it is a affair of his life and decease. The assorted people in the group started using their head and doing sense of the possible defects in the testimonies. Many started to flip in their thoughts and the supporter was listening to them all and utilizing them to beef up his hypothesis of uncertainness about male child being guilty. Now they started using the resources in the group to do the most informed determination. The group kineticss was at work the best. They were supplementing each other’s logic by their ain logic in order to do a decision of the veracity of the grounds and its testimony. There were a twosome of aggressive people in the group.
When one of them lashed out at the old adult male in the group. another individual intervened and warned him non to reiterate contemptuous behavior. Therefore. along the manner the group stated forming norms about the behavior in the group. Besides. when one adult male changed his opinion merely for the interest of it in order to come to consensus sooner than subsequently. so another individual made it a point to him by stating that he needed to show his logic for altering his determination and he did non desire to accept his ‘yes’ or ‘no’ merely for the interest of it. Some people engaged themselves in societal idleness without respect to the earnestness of the aim ; they were reminded of the aim by others. Last individual — boy left so he was seeing his boy in the immature male child.