Twelve Angry Men: Kohlberg's Moral Development Analysis

Introduction: The Cultural Impact of Twelve Angry Men

Few films have left as great an impact upon American society and culture as the 1957 classic Twelve Angry Men. The film examines an important topic in American culture — namely, jury duty and the responsibility of weighing evidence carefully in order to determine whether an accused person is guilty or not. This is a fundamental aspect upon which the country was built, and the film examines it beautifully, especially in its portrayal of those who fail to carry out this duty. The following analysis provides a brief synopsis of the film, examines it through the lens of Kohlberg's stages of moral development, and explores how an individual viewer can identify with each juror.

The central conflict of the film revolves around the jury's deliberations over whether the defendant is guilty of murder. As one critique describes it, Twelve Angry Men is "the gripping, penetrating, and engrossing examination of a diverse group of twelve jurors (all male, mostly middle-aged, white, and generally of middle-class status) who are uncomfortably brought together to deliberate after hearing the 'facts' in a seemingly open-and-shut murder trial case."

Synopsis and Central Conflict

After being presented with the case, the jurors retire to the jury room, where a heated debate ensues — initially sparked by one juror out of twelve refusing to vote guilty. The film examines the personalities of the jurors and confronts the audience with the danger of deliberating too hastily and sending a potentially innocent person to his death.

The jurors are all distinctly different, and it is important to examine each personality before linking it to Kohlberg's stages.

Profiles of the Twelve Jurors

Juror 1, the Foreman, is primarily concerned with the technicalities of the deliberation process. He is not a natural leader, though he remains open to compromise. Juror 2 is easily persuaded but makes repeated efforts to ease the tension in the room. Juror 3 is a bully — opinionated, biased, and broadly intolerant. Juror 4 is well-educated and approaches the case analytically, treating it like a puzzle to be solved.

Juror 5 is noticeably insecure. Juror 6 is a working-class man who struggles to make up his mind. Juror 7 is best described as a salesman who simply wants to be somewhere else. Juror 8 is the most insightful of the group — patient, principled, and persistent in his pursuit of the truth.

Juror 9 is the eldest member of the jury and is notably fair-minded. Juror 10 shares much in common with Juror 3: he is opinionated, intolerant, and openly racist. Juror 11 is an immigrant who expresses deep respect for the American justice system and demonstrates considerable patience throughout. Finally, Juror 12 is a well-dressed businessman who proves to be highly vacillating in his views.

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg's stages of moral development can be mapped onto each of these individuals. The stages are organized into three broad levels: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional, each representing an increasing level of moral maturity. The first level is centered on self-interest and self-centeredness. The second focuses on social conformity and maintaining accord with group norms. The third and most advanced level is oriented toward universal ethical principles and the concept of a social contract.