Some of the jurors are prejudiced and have strong stereotypes about the defendant. For example, one juror believes that the defendant’s negative background indicates that he is or will become a criminal.
The juries focus on the different opinions among them and they ignore the real issues in the case that can potentially lead them to a miscarriage of justice. Added into the mix, there are some jurors who are anxious to "get this over with" as soon as possible and they are not really interested if the defendant is guilty or innocent.
2) Do you think that Henry Fonda’s decision to disagree with the original vote of “guilty” was based on his firm belief that the defendant was innocent?
I believe that Henry Fonda’s decision to disagree with the original vote of «guilty» was not based on his firm belief that the defendant was innocent. At first Fonda bases his vote for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
He supports the belief that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Also he takes into consideration that the case is about a matter of a life or death of a young man and that must decide wisely about the verting. Fonda is the voice of reason even as he realises that this may free a murderer. His strength lies in finding the weak spots in arguments, which make it easy for the juries to change their mind.
3)Why do you think Henry Fonda was so successful in changing the attitudes and perceptions of the other members of the jury?
Fonda is the natural leadership of the juries. In addition, he takes advantage of the jurors' complex personalities to convince the other jurors that a "not guilty" verdict might be appropriate. As a result he persistently and persuasively, forces the other men to slowly reconsider and review their vote.
He supported his beliefs with strong evidence. One of them refers to the claim that the case of the defendant has no future of being won because the court appointed a public defence lawyer who inadequately cross-examined the witnesses. Then, he asks the questions that should have been asked in court.
He is a conscious man that organizes his perceptions into neat categories and retrieve data quickly in an organized manner.
4) On the basis of the film you have just seen, what comments would you like to make regarding the process of changing people’s perception of a situation? E.g. is it easy, pleasant, quick? Do some people find it easier to change their perception of a situation than others, and if so why?
There is no single rule about the process of changing people’s perception of a situation. Therefore the change of a perception depends on various factors such us personality, self-confidence and social status.
Sometimes it is easy, pleasant and quick to change a perception but in most of the cases is a very difficult, time taking and unpleasant procedure. There are people who change their perception very easy. For example in the film there was a man who was hesitant and went along with the majority. That reveals that he has a weak personality.
Perceptual defence is the tendency for people to protect themselves against ideas, objects or situations that are threatening. Once established an individual way of viewing the world may become highly resistant to change. Such example is the man that believes with a great zeal that the young man is guilty.
In order to change perception of someone you have to show strong evidence that support the idea you want to create. For example Fonda’s strong personality and ability to change the perception of most of the juries.
The Foreman is concerned to maintain authority within the juries. His is although inadequate for the job as foreman because he is not a natural leader. Therefore, the leader who is Henry Fonda easily pursues him.
5) Do you think that the defendant was innocent of guilty?
According to my opinion the defendant was not guilty. But this is my perception based on my own beliefs about the case.
The boy on trial has been dealt as a bad child, growing up in a lousy neighbourhood with an abusive father. Even if he did commit the crime, the idea is that we need to look beyond the stereotypes and our experiences with "similar" people and judge each person as an individual based on what we know or can learn about them.
The key point the film makes is the verdict will be based on prejudices and preconceived notions unless the evidence is thoroughly examined. Guilty or innocent isn't the heart of the film. The heart of the film is a democratic concept of right and wrong that allows not just the court to function, but the society as a whole.
