12 Angry Man Case
The movie, the 12 angry Men is largely known for its great storyline and single set shooting. The entire movie revolves around the trial of a boy that was being accused of stabbing his father. The 12 angry men in this case are the men that sit on the jury of his trial. Through the course of the movie, they would decide if the boy is guilty. And if he were, he would be sentenced to death. After exchanging pleasantries, everybody except one juror voted that the boy is guilty. The one juror that voted not guilty believed that boy was not capable of committing such an act and the evidence against him was too weak to vote guilty. As the American Judicial system is based on a unanimous vote of the jury, the jury cannot dissolve until there is a unanimous vote. As the movie unfolds, questions about the credibility of the evidence are discussed and as the jurors start to really think about the crime, they realize that the boy could not have done it. The movie ends with the jury voting non-guilty.
The entire movie has an underlining theme of empathy towards the young boy. Empathy, the ability to think and feel as other do, is clearly demonstrated multiple times through the course of the movie. For example, even in the beginning of the movie, the first juror to vote not guilty was empathetic to the boy. He claimed that he doesnt believe that the boy could do such a thing and the evidence against the boy was not enough. He argues that there is too much at stake for him to vote the boy as guilty and tries to think about the plight of the boy. He understood that his vote of accusing the boy as being guilty would result in the death of somebody who might possibly be not guilty. He was empathetic to the boy’s situation. Personally, I am known to very empathetic in most situations and if I was a juror, I would also be empathetic towards the boy.
The movie is also based on complexity. The ability to understand a given situation in multiple ways is an essential trait of a juror and the first juror who decided to not conform to the group showed this. He understood that although the evidence does suggest that, it is not enough to conclude that the boy committed the crime. For example, every juror in the jury heard the exact same story about what had happened. They were presented in the same courtroom and thus were given the same exact information about the case. All the jurors that voted the boy as not guilty chose to exercise their complexity and see the true nature of things. For example, the prostitution claimed that the boy, a foot shorter than the victim was able to stab the victim. As the jurors discusses the likelihood of this, one of the juror pointed out that no matter how skilled an individual might be, the way of the victim was stabbed is not logically possible. Through a different interpretation of the exact same event, he was able to convince more jurors that the boy, might in fact, not be guilty. His use of cognitive complexity