Twelve Angry Men Analysis

Reaching a unanimous vote, beyond a reasonable doubt, was a difficult task for the jurors represented in the film, 12 Angry Men. All but one were convinced the boy on trial was guilty of first degree murder based on eye witness testimony and circumstantial evidence. Uncomfortably hot and sweaty, one intent on getting to a ball game, eleven of the twelve jurors had no intention to stop and think about the life contingent on their verdict. The entire story was motivated by the reasonable doubt, communication competence, and persuasion of one man. Had they not discussed the evidence in further detail and investigated potential explanations, the boy would have been executed.

The purpose of the group was to determine guilt or innocence across the board. Just as the jurors did not know the defendant, they did not know each other. No juror shared his name and the men were only identified by juror number. The lack of trust, combined with various backgrounds and beliefs, created communication barriers between the jurors. Yelling, side conversation, walking away, preexisting bias, game playing, doodling and unbearable heat are all examples of the communication barriers the jurors were challenged to overcome throughout the film. The relationship between the jurors was complex and appeared to only be important in the short-term. They were forced to communicate with each other for the duration of the deliberation. As the conversation advanced, the jurors unintentionally gained insight to their own empathy and behavior tendencies. These are both attributes characteristics of long-term relationship. As the jurors shared individual information driving their position changes, the relationships among the group changed. The intensity of their relationships grew quickly once small talk was replaced with emotional opinions and reactions.

The communication which occurred in the group was primarily verbal, yet non-verbal communication was just as evident. There were several examples...