Surname 1

Name

Instructor

Course

Date

Movie review: “The 12 Angry Men”

Prompt 1: Pre-disposing factors promoting institutional cynicism

During the trial in the “12 Angry Men” movie, two factors were depicted to dictate the

way judgment was being made in the courtroom. Precisely, the institutional cynicism and neglect

were expressed by the fact that the defendant came from a marginalized group and also the case

had a heavy reliance on the unreliable pieces of evidence. The 18 years old boy accused of

stabbing his father is being considered by Juror 10 as not only a lair and wild but also a

dangerous person because he comes from a slum background (Lumet).

On the other hand, the evidence presented by the elderly witness suffering from stroke

and the woman who claimed to have witnessed the death scene through the window of her

bedroom are controversial and lack logic of justifying the defendant’s guilt. Therefore, inherently

unreliable evidence plays a more important role in the deliberations (Lumet). This is because the

elderly man was suffering from stroke and could not have made it in time to witness the stabbing

of the bereaved by the accused. Also, this witness did not hear the conversation at the murder

scene because of the noise made from an elevated train that was passing at the time of the

murder. This assertion made Jurors 2 and 6 change their votes to “not guilty.”Elsewhere, the

impressions woman witness makes in court and the logic behind lack of enough time to put on

glasses before witnessing the murder are enough facts to make Jurors 4, 10 and 12 change their

perceptions towards the murder case (Lumet). Nonetheless, the aforementioned evidence had
 Surname 2

made 11 Jurors to pass a “guilty” vote on the accused before the discussion of the reliability of

this evidence.

Prompt 2: Stereotyping

The first instance of stereotyping in the movies occurs when Juror 10 expresses his mind

that the accused is from the slum background which makes him be a liar as well as wild and

dangerous. However, this claim does not impact much on the proceedings of the discussion at

this stage. The most problematic instance is the second stereotyping scene because it is

characterized by criticisms and influences the path that the case takes. When Juror 3 openly

criticizes Juror 5 of having sympathy to slum children, the discussion takes another turn (Lumet).

This second stereotyping is directed to Juror 5 who happens to come from a slum background

just like the accused person. The significance of this instance is that it enables the audience to see

that Juror 9 has understood the need for the discussion of the Juror 8’s claim and the switched

vote from “guilty” to “not guilty” presents a problematic scene marred with stereotyping

accusations in the movie.

However, the last stereotyping incidence is presented exclusively that it is used to justify

the innocence of the accused boy. In this scene, Juror 5 explains why it is impossible for a

shorter person like the accused to make a downward stab in a taller person of the father’s height

using the switchblade (Lumet). Having grown up in the midst of knife fights, Juror 5 explains the

exact way switchblades are used during fights in the slums. The experiment, though

characterized with stereotyping elements, makes some Jurors confirm the innocence of the

accused boy (Lumet). Therefore, it can be said that stereotyping plays an important role in

determining the reliability of the evidence presented in the court to make the defendant guilty.
 Surname 3

Prompt 3: De-escalating initial commitments

Initially, 11 Jurors out of 12 voted unanimously that the defendant is guilty and deserved

the death penalty. It is only one jury member, Juror 8, who voted in opposite direction to open

room for the discussion of the evidence presented in the court. Notably, the eleven members on

the “guilty” side were committed to their course of actions and could not just readily change their

perceptions even if after understanding the factual elements concerning the evidence presented in

the court (Lumet). However, Juror 8 initiates the process of forcing others to de-escalate their

commitments as the trial unfolds progressively. Firstly, he explains his points on the reasonable

doubt concerning the boy’s guilt and requests for a secret ballot that he abstains from. At this

stage, Juror 9 de-escalates his initial commitment and believes a discussion is needed.

The argument that Juror 8 presents about the reliability of the elderly man witness is

convincing enough to make Jurors 5, 11, 2 and 6 de-escalate their initial commitments as well.

Besides, Jurors 12, 10, and 4 are convinced by the Juror 8’s argument that the evidence of the

woman witness lacks logical reasons to make the boy guilty before de-escalating their initial

commitments (Lumet). Elsewhere, it is Juror 11 who makes Juror 7 understand the facts

concerning g the case under discussion hence de-escalating the initial commitments. However,

Juror 3 who is the last one to de-escalate his initial commitment is forced by the reality that it is

proper to follow correct judicial provisions while making jurisdictions and not personal emotions

(Lumet). This Juror has a spoilt relationship with his son, and that is why he wants the defendant

to be guilty and eventually be punished as a way of teaching young people a lesson.

 Surname 4

Work Cited

Lumet, Sidney, director. 12 Angry Men. YouTube, Henry Fonda Reginald Rose, 1957,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dosg0p7LAB4.