Memory is the means by which we draw on our past experiences in order to use this information in the present’ (Sternberg, 1999). Memorization and understanding can be quite complex and misunderstanding, even when it’s your own brain you are dealing with. Your memory has a huge capacity limit. It can be quickly altered by something as simple as another conversation in the same area to something as complex as a mental disorder. Unfortunately, there are time when your memory may not work as well as you wish it should and use to.
The movie, Twelve Angry Men, tells the story of 12 jurors whom are instructed by the judge to come to a verdict for an 18-year-old male being charged first degree murder. The 18-year-old male allegedly stabbed his father to death after an intense argument. If found guilty, the male will receive capital punishment. After hearing the charges and description of evidence, the 12 jurors were then directed to the juror room to talk amongst one another in hopes of making a final decision. Once the men all took their seats in the hot jury room, they all stated the defendant was guilty of the charges except one, Juror #8.
Juror #1 was simply the leader of the jury. He was responsible for keeping everything orderly amongst the jury. Outside of the jury room he was an assistant football coach which explained his authoritative personality; he knows how to properly control a group. He gave orders and received feedback on the regular at his everyday job. He took matters descriptively described all the evidence to the jurors without being bias.
127 our experts are availableright now
Juror #2 works at a bank as a bank teller. Amongst all the other juror, he seemed to come off quite shy and just simply went along with what everyone else said. He was trying to avoid all confrontation amongst the jury. In the beginning, he stated that the defendant was guilty simply because no one could prove that he wasn’t guilty.
Juror #3 is the owner of a small messenger service. Throughout the movie, he was quite boastful about owning a business. He also was not happy about who he was as a person; he was a dysfunctional individual. He was determined that the 18-year-old was guilty and needed to be sent straight to the electric chair for the death penalty. He said that the defendant was obviously guilty because he was seen by the store owner below the apartment leaving the scene prior to the arrival of the police. Secondly, he pointed out that the defendant stated he went to see movie that night but doesn’t remember what movie was seen. Thirdly, a woman across the street stated that she had seen the entire crime take place. Later in the movie, he discussed that he had a horrible relationship with his son which I believe was a contributing factor to his malicious ruling for the defendant. He also stated that children are more disrespectful than they use to be. He was the last of the jurors to realize that the defendant may in fact be innocent, and his behavior reflected the angry he had toward his son and dysfunctional life.
Juror #4 is a stockbroker. He tries to portray the image of a very intellectual and logical individual. After interrogation by Juror #8, he realizes that it’s nearly impossible for an individual to properly remember in detail what activities they participated in a week ago. This caused him to begin to sweat; Juror #4 stated that he doesn’t sweat which showed that everyone sweats especially if under a lot of pressure.
The statement from one of the juror’s about the defendant being from the slums reflecting on his behavior and actions caused an arousal from Juror #5. Juror #5 goes into depth about him living in the slums his entire life and working at a hospital. He thought otherwise; he thought he came out fine after being raised in the slums.
Juror #6 works for works for some type of housing company and is just happy to not be at work. Also, Juror #6 became very upset with one of the jurors after raising his voice at Juror #9 whom is elderly, which showed his respect for his elders. However, he is more concerned about potentially put a murderer back on the streets. He believed that the argument between the defendant and his father was enough evidence for the case. Also, the defendant had history of behavioral issues as a child. That’s what he strongly led the father to his death.
Juror #7 works in sales. He came across as very aggressive and temperamental simply because he wanted to come to a verdict quickly so he can get to the baseball game in time. He doesn’t really say much, but he continued to remind the jurors that he had a game to attend. He wanted to come to a decision as soon as possible.
Amongst all the other jurors, Juror #8 made it quite difficult for the rest of the juror to simply call the victim guilty. He is an architect which explains why he thought the verdict through very thoroughly. Most architects appear to be highly investigative, creative and rational. They tend to look at the bigger picture and focus on abstract information rather than concrete details. In the beginning, he was the only one who continued to state that he believed the victim was not guilty. He thoroughly thought about every piece of evidence given in depth. The part of the evidence that was pointed out quickly by Juror #8 was that the male was supposedly sold the exact same pocketknife earlier that day.
Ironically, Juror #8 had the exact same knife in his pocket. This shocked all the other jurors. Juror #8 also used his strategical personality to play out the measurements in a diagram to support his decision on the defendant being not guilty. Other jurors quickly began to change their verdict after Juror #8’s mind changing statements. Secondly, he pointed out a woman who supposedly seen the entire crime take place. He then explained that the woman had asked for her glasses in the courtroom, which means her vision is impairment. How could she see the crime take place after waking up from her sleep without her glasses? He again used his architectural skills to his advantage and gave measurements which lead jurors to believe that the evidence indeed could be false. In the end, Juror #8 persuaded all the other jurors that this 18-year-old victim was not guilty.
I am unsure as to what Juror #9’s career entailed; however, he was an elderly man who quickly became a supporter of the defendant after Juror #8’s first statement. Of all the juror’s, he seemed to be the most open-minded after closely listening to why Juror #8 voted “not guilty” He later pointed out that the woman who supposedly seen the crime take place had marks on the side of her nose that indicated that she wore glasses. He believed that the woman could not have properly seen the actions take place unless she sleeps with her glasses on.
In the movie, Juror #10 stated, “You’re not going to tell me we’re supposed to believe this kid, knowing what he is.” What does that mean? What is the kid? That was clearly a discriminative statement. His decision was solely made based off his bias thoughts and believes toward the defendant. He was one who was difficult to persuade that the defendant may indeed be innocent. He eventually gave in toward the end of the movie once he realized that majority of the room had voted “not guilty.”
Juror #11 focused more on the fact that the verdict needs to be fair and ethical. He is mindful about the opportunity they were given as the juror to make an unbiased decision. He believes that they should not take this opportunity for granted.
Juror #12 works in the marketing industry; he refers to his job a few times throughout the movie. Throughout the movie, he is frequently distracted by random items while the case is being discussed in the jury room.
In the end, this movie proved that individuals can see the same situation in different ways based on their way of living and lifestyle. The way one is raised and/or lives factors into their behaviors and way of thinking. Working in groups is sometimes inevitable in order to achieve a nonbiased decision. It is important to recognize group dynamics and how to maintain a successful group. Poor group dynamics can lead to poor decision making and/or unproductive outcomes. There are multiple categories to group dynamics. Group dynamics that best fit this jury is a functional group.
This group was created at random by the state unbiasedly within an unspecified time frame with the hopes of reaching a verdict. These individuals do not share any interests or values. Also, Sigmund Freud’s concept of id, the ego, and the super ego played a part in interacting everyone’s personality. It brought the group separated the group in the beginning. In due time, the group was brought together once they realized their behaviors had a huge impact on their decisions.
References
- National Center for Biotechnology Information – The Capacity of Human Working Memory
- Healthline – Memory Loss: Causes, Treatments, and Prevention
- ScienceDaily – Memory News
- National Center for Biotechnology Information – The Misuse of Continuous Audio Output Monitoring Devices to Study Immediate Serial Recall: Cases of Underestimated Performance from Real Auditories
- PubMed – Memory Misattributions in Healthy Older Adults are Not Based on Incomplete Picture Memories
- Harvard Science in the News – The Story of the Memory, Marks of the Memory
