Juror Number 2 In 12 Angry Men

Communication Processes in the Film 12 Angry Men The movie 12 Angry Men is known for its portrayal of group dynamics and its demonstration of how a single dissenter has the power to change group opinion. In the film, 12 white men are in a jury, asked to determine whether the accused, a young Hispanic male, is guilty of killing his father.

However, while it is tempting to view the film as a group study, it is critical to consider that the group of jurors is actually composed of several different individuals, who all bring their own attributes, including communication styles to the group dynamic. One juror whose communication style is interesting is Juror 2, also known as the Mouse or Mouse.

He is characterized as a meek man with no opinions of his own, and throughout the movie one sees him vacillate in his beliefs about the defendant's guilt, seemingly swayed by the other jury members. However, a more careful inspection of Mouse's behavior reveals him to have some ideas of his own, but fearful of sharing those ideas with the rest of the jury. Before discussing Mouse's communication style, it is important to discuss the apparent homogeny of the group's composition.

All of the jurors are white males, and, at first blush, they appear to have a lot in common. One might think that their apparent similarity would encourage each of the individuals in the group to communicate openly. However, personal characteristics impact how people communicate. Some of the more reticent jurors may be shy and may not want to appear different from the other jurors. Mouse, a shy bank clerk, begins the movie feeling very uncomfortable with the group process.

He is hesitant to speak at all, which makes it difficult for the other jurors to know his perspective. Moreover, it makes it easy for the jurors to assume that he shares their perspectives about the case, because he is not openly advocating for a different point-of-view. It is also critical to look at the impact of the circumstances on the communication styles.

The jury is time-pressured to come to a verdict, and this time pressure can increase the likelihood that some people will speak up, but it can also have an opposite effect on people who are naturally hesitant. Furthermore, the men are very physically hot. Though it is not the topic of discussion in this paper, the reality is that heat is linked to people being short-tempered and even violent.

Several of the jury members immediately appear to be angry bullies, and one can only assume that the time pressure and the heat would serve to magnify their natural tendencies. Furthermore, it seems fair to assume that natural timid tendencies may be magnified in the same circumstances. Mouse begins the movie as a person who is very uncomfortable with the jury process. He seems very uncomfortable with the idea that anything he says could add to the discomfort or pressure that the other members of the jury are experiencing.

What is clear throughout the movie is that Mouse always has some concerns about the defendant's guilt. He is not one of the six jurors to immediately vote guilty when the jury makes its initial vote. Instead, he only votes guilty after seeing how most of the group will vote. Furthermore, he does not argue for the defendant's guilt. Instead, he appears to listen to the arguments, including the lone dissenting juror's argument.

However, even while he is listening to the arguments that other jurors are making in favor of the defendant being not guilty, Mouse sits on his concerns through much of the movie. Finally, Mouse voices his concerns. He believes that the angle of the stab wounds means that the defendant could not have committed the crime. From what he says, it is clear that Mouse has had this concern throughout the deliberation process.

However, he was uncomfortable voicing this belief when he thought that most of the other jurors were convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant's guilt (Lumet, 1957). In fact, rather than rely on his intellect, he allowed himself to be influenced by the group as a whole, stating, "I just think he's guilty. I thought it was obvious from the word 'go.' I mean, no one proved otherwise" (Lumet, 1957). This statement becomes very interesting in light of his later revelation that he had some concerns about the evidence.

While it would be tempting to dismiss Mouse's inaction as cowardice, it is actually indicative of a results-oriented communication style. When he believes that he is the only one who has questions about the defendant's guilt, Mouse appears to think that speaking up would be futile. When he realizes that at least one other juror has questions about the defendant's guilt, he seems to realize that discussing the angle of the wounds may actually have a purpose.

He states, "It's a very awkward thing to stab down into the chest of someone who's more than a.