12 Angry Men - Extra Credit

12 Angry Men is a film about a group of twelve jurors who have to make a decision on a murder case on young boy has been accused of stabbing his own father. The jury has to reach a unanimous decision of the teenage boy being guilty for him to receive a death sentence. (twelve to none vote) Just about the entire film is about the twelve jurors contemplating why the accused boy is guilty or innocent. The atmosphere of the plot is very intense and psychological having viewers of the movie consider what they would do if they were in the same situation as the main characters. Initially juror number 8 is the only one who believes the boy is innocent, as the story progresses the other eleven jurors begin to reconsider their vote on whether or not the boy is guilty. There are many aspects of sociology that are observable in this film such as social deviance, acceptable norms.

The film constructs social reality in the way of how all the jurors feel about the accused boy. The social reality was able to be constructed this way because several of the jurors had personal prejudices against children who were from slums or having issues with their own children.

A universal problem that is shown in several ways throughout the film is personal prejudice getting in the way of judgment. Juror number ten’s reason for saying the accused boy was guilty was because he felt people from slums should not be trusted and that they kill each other for fun. His prejudice lead him to discriminate against the boy initially by voting guilty early on in the film, before being convinced into voting not guilty.

Another form of prejudice came from juror number three. He had personal issues with his own, therefore making him prejudiced against a boy accused of stabbing his own father. For this reason he discriminates by simply wanting the defendant to be guilty, because of his own prejudice caused by problems with his own makes it feel justified for him before he is convinced to vote not guilty.

The sociological theory that tone of this film could easily fall under is the conflict perspective. At the very beginning, viewers can clearly see the tension is between the jurors whom most have a personal prejudice against the boy for certain reason. One of the main reasons is because the boy was from a slum. People who live in poor neighborhood are always disadvantaged compared to people who live in better neighborhoods. Since some jurors simply expected that a boy from the slums would commit an act like they were stereotyping that all people who come from slums are criminals. Even if a person is not personally prejudiced against an individual or group, stereotypes can have them make discriminatory actions such as voting guilty. The reason most of these men stereotyped the actions of the accused boy is because of socialization. The way of transmission was probably through media; crimes showed by television news or newspapers are frequently from neighborhood of low economics standing.

Deviance is another sociological aspect that can be examined in this film. Deviance is a very relative term where depending on the group and situation, it can vary. Juror number was the only juror in the beginning of the film that felt the boy was not guilty. When the first vote most of the other jurors were startled by the fact he could think the boy was innocent and even were upset at him for thinking that. The reason his action in voting not guilty was considered deviant, was because he literally deviated away from the norm of the other eleven jurors in believing that the boy was guilty. As the film went on the jurors began changing their votes, eventually the roles were reversed; juror number three was the only one who would vote guilty. The complete change in the situation made juror number three appear to be the one committing the deviant act since it is revealed that the main reason he wanted to vote guilty is because of issues with his own son.

One of the most important things I learned in observing the sociological aspects of this film is how easily norms can change. The norms of eleven out of the twelve men voting guilty, changed entirely to guilty as the film came to a close.