Criminology

Societal details are prototype of activities that differentiates a communal assemblage, which comprises of sanctions, principles, and customs. In the motion picture, 12 Angry Men, the adjudicators as an assembly is an exemplar of an ethnicity in which societal particulars can be depicted.

12 Angry Men (1957) is an insightful film, demonstrating different societal psychology theories and attitudes through the representation of 12 middle-aged Americans, bearing similar and different prejudices, ideologies, cultural differentiation, personal fears, weaknesses, indifferences and judgments. These men were assigned the duty to come to a decision for a teenager on a murder trial and how the varied opinions and assessment of the jurors gradually alters from the ballot of culpable to not culpable as the movie progresses
       
Juror 1 liked to be in authority and lead the initial proceeding. However he did not have the leadership qualities and was sensitive about his control over the matter. He did cast his vote in favor of being culpable numerous times however he changed his vote, together with two other jurors, to formulate the totality of nine to three for exoneration. Juror 2 was unconfident about his individual opinions and easily influenced. Juror Two alters his ballot to not culpable, together with Jurors 6 and 11. Juror 3 was a very narrow-minded, discourteous and prejudiced man. His fight with his own son resulted in his resentment towards young people and rebelliousness till the end. Juror 3 was the final person to proffer for a culpable outcome. Juror 4 was intellectual and egotistical he displayed a combination of being both composed and prudish. He observed the case reasonably without letting sentiments interfere. He is the very last person in the panel of adjudicators to alter his ballot. Juror 5 appeared to be a reserved person who has grown up in the slums hence, his vote against the accused was actually estrangement from his past. He was the second person to change his vote to, not at fault. Juror 6 was a stern, indecisive man who found it safe to follow the mainstream opinion. He was more of a heeder than a conversationalist. Juror 7 was a gregarious person and a huge baseball fan. His indifferent attitude was shown in his impulsive vote of guilty after which he rushed to attend the evening game. Juror 8 was a solicitous person who shows courage in selecting not-guilty for the accused. This decision also displayed his sense of responsibility as a member of the jury who wishes to give ample consideration to both angles of the trial. Juror 9, a retired man who was sensitive, understanding and fair minded but he too initially, was exposed to coequals pressure. He was the foremost Juror to alter his vote to not culpable, affirming that he required a complete debate of the lawsuit, as Juror 8 had asked for. Juror 10 was a bitter racist, who was very class conscious and extremely intolerable and revolted towards the lower class. He considers stoutly that the accused was at fault he bickered on the proceedings vehemently, and was one of the very last to propose for an accountable decision. Juror 11 was a watchmaker and a recent migr who held pride and respect in the democratic and judicial system of America. Subsequent to hearing the grievance of Jurors 7 and 10, Jurors 11 modifies his decision to not at fault. Juror 12 was a well-dressed, easy-going person he did not care much for beliefs and passion. He alters his vote back to guilty after the unwavering evidence provided by the lady who saw the assassination being committed. But later on after Juror 4 and 9s opposing point of views he was easily swayed to alter his ballot back once more to guiltless.

Twelve Angry Men is a fantastic movie that sensationalizes the deficiencies present in the U.S panel of adjudicators system. Concurrently, it conveys the significant message that for the reason that we are humans and not machinery, it is in the character of things that righteousness commands such a system.