12 Angry Men

        In the movie “12 Angry Men,” there is a young man on trial for the murder of his father. The jury consists of all white, middle class to upper class, middle aged and older men. Henry Fonda stars in the film and plays Juror number 8 (an architect).  Throughout the film, Fonda makes each of the men realize that there is more to the story than they heard in court. This influence and communication is the main derivers of the film.  Four forms of influence observed are: Consultation, Exchange, Inspiration and Pressure (Bauer & Erdogan 2015).  

Consultation is seen in the testimony of the woman who heard and saw the boy stab his father. When Fonda reenacted the scene there were large holes that could be turned in favor of the boy. Although, Fonda and the some of the jurors came to see that viewing more data on the case there can be points made for the boy, the others like the guy that had problems with his son, rejected the idea and continued to stick to data presented by the prosecutor. Exchange, the act of trading or cutting a deal, is depicted in the scene where Fonda stated that if another vote is conducted amongst the jurors anonymously (excluding himself, Juror #8) and all the votes come back guilty he will change his vote to Guilty as well.  This in turns brings reasonable doubt amongst the jurors and raises frustrations in turn showing Pressure (simply defined as intimidation).  Pressure and reason (logic or rational) are best seen when Fonda gets the group to think and highlights the flaws in the case and in turn testing/ acting out the scenarios discussed amongst the group only assists establishing the possibility of reasonable doubt. Then his act of antagonizing another juror to show how the society uses terms such as “I’ll kill you” loosely without the intentions to actually harm the other person. The other juror out of frustration, actually contradicted himself and said the exact phrase that he said proved that the boy had intentions to kill his father.

Fonda was so persuasive! He clarified that he is not trying to change anyone’s mind. However, he presented himself as an open-minded person who seeks truth and justice. He honestly tried to understand others’ point of view, and never accept any piece of information as a given fact. Rather, he tested each piece of information and showed clearly that they must be very careful before sending somebody to death. Moreover, Fonda gambled to establish credibility until he found the first person to believe in him. He never tried to make his case with an up-front, hard sell. However, he was asking about “reasonable doubt”. Also, he did not resist compromising, especially when it was necessary to move to the next point. He let other supporters take the lead and talk on behalf of his side. Finally, he did not assume that persuasion is a one-shot effort. He worked hard to build credibility over time and listened carefully and discussed each single argument.