How do individual biases influence group dynamics in "Twelve Angry Men"?

In the play, Juror #8 wants to carefully think about his judgment. He does not want someone to be punished for a crime they did not commit, and he does not feel he has enough information to make a vote at the start of the play. All of the other jurors, however, immediately assume that boy is guilty and want to give their judgment ("guilty") quickly so that they are able to leave.

No. 7: Let's vote now. Who knows, maybe we can all go home.

No. 10: Yeah. Let's see who's where.

No. 3: Right. Let's vote now.

At this point, several hands go up. Others raise their hands (to say the boy is guilty) more slowly. Then, the foreman counts the votes for "not guilty." One hand, Juror # 8's hand, goes up. The fellow jurors ask him if he really does not believe that the boy is guilty. He responds, "I don't know." Juror #3 immediately responds,

No. 3: I never saw a guiltier man in my life. You sat right in court and heard the same thing I did. The man's a dangerous killer. You could see it.

Juror #3 forms his judgment of the boy by his physical appearance. He stereotypes his characteristics, saying that he looks like a "dangerous killer" simply by the way he looks. Juror #7 judges the boy based on his past history and offers him no chance of redeeming his past actions:

No. 7: . . . Look at the kid's record. At fifteen he was in reform school. He stole a car. He's been arrested for mugging. He was picked up for knife-fighting. I think they said he stabbed somebody in the arm. This is a very fine boy.

Because the accused boy committed crimes in the past, Juror #7 assumes he must be a habitual criminal. He offers him no grace. Juror #8, however, shows compassion toward the boy:

No. 8: Ever since he was five years old his father beat him up regularly. He used his fists.

At this point of the conversation Juror #3 begins to reveal his bad experiences with his son. He explains,

No. 3: It's the kids. . . . They don't listen. (Bitter) I've got a kid. When he was eight years old, he ran away from a fight. I saw him. I was so ashamed . . . I haven't seen him in three years. Rotten kid! . . .

Most characters bring their emotions and past experiences into the jury room with them. Their thoughts are often colored by their past experiences.

How do individual biases influence group dynamics in "Twelve Angry Men"?

The majority of the plot of Twelve Angry Men focuses around the biases that cause the men to vote the way they do.  It seems that Juror #8 is the only one to put his biases aside to look at the case objectively.

For instance, Juror #10 is racist.  He believes that "those people" (the racial, ethnic, sexual or political group that the young boy belongs to) have no value for human life, are always killing and up to no good.  He lets this pre-judgement color the facts of the trial for him.

Juror #3 lets his personal relationship with his son color his votes about the boy's guilt or innocence.  Juror #3 has unresolved issues with his own son, and is therefore determined that his boy will pay for the hurt his own son caused him.

Juror #9 allows his bias toward the eldery (and himself) to allow Juror #8 to continue on.  Juror #9 feels he understands the old man (being old himself) and allows himself to empathize with the old man.  Juror #5, being from the slums himself, is also able to empathize with the boy on trial.

What biases are apparent among the jurors in Twelve Angry Men?

The main bias among the jurors is that the defendant is from the slums. It is assumed that just because the defendant is from a lower socioeconomic background that he is more capable of violent behavior, that he just cannot help himself. In general, the poor are referred to as "they" or "them," showing how dehumanized the disadvantaged are even when it comes to getting a fair trial. As a result, some of the jurors think having the defendant executed would be like putting down a violent, rabid animal. This is different in the case of Juror Five, who grew up in the slums himself and is reluctant to claim that everyone from the slums is inherently murderous and criminal.

The defendant is also of Puerto Rican descent, adding racial bias into the mix. The jurors are all white. Some seem to have a minimal racial bias, while others are openly racist and vitriolic about it, even by the standards of the setting of the play (the United States in the 1950s).

Sometimes, the bias is personal. Juror Seven has tickets to a Broadway show for the evening (in the film, a baseball game), so he votes according to the majority, just so they can leave faster. Juror Three is angry at his own son and therefore projecting that anger onto the defendant.

How does peer pressure influence the jurors' verdicts in Twelve Angry Men?

Reginald Rose's 1954 play observes that in life there are more followers than leaders. Peer pressure is a force that affects any demographic, though many people ascribe it solely to teenagers. The men on the jury are deliberating the fate of a teenage boy accused of killing his father with a knife. They, too, are subject to peer pressure. This pressure causes some of them to flip-flop on a vote that will determine whether that boy is acquitted or is condemned to die in the electric chair.

From the outset of deliberations, Juror #8 has doubts that are serious enough that despite the pressure of the other eleven men who have voted to convict, he urges them to recognize that one of the key pieces of evidence, a knife, is not unique and cannot logically be used to prove the young man's guilt. His courage in standing alone against the rest and resisting intense peer pressure is enough to get a second juror to back him. From this point forward, it is clear that there will not be a unanimous vote to convict.

If there is a positive aspect to peer pressure in this play, it has to do with the overt prejudice expressed by Juror #10. He is a bigot prepared to convict the boy simply because he is not white. Whether it is peer pressure to not look like a bigot or genuine disgust with his attitude, the other eleven turn their backs to him.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the jurors' assumptions in Twelve Angry Men?

In Twelve Angry Men, the jurors are all locked into the jury room in order to arrive at a verdict. Many of these men enter the room with assumptions before any discussion begins. For, when the foreman calls for an initial vote, all but one vote "Guilty." When some hear that one has not voted for the defendant's conviction, they are angered and express what they assume are foregone conclusions.

• No. 3 then says, "Somebody's in left field....The man's a dangerous killer." When No.4 reminds the jurors that the defendant bought a switch-knife, suggesting that there is only one reason for this purchase. No.3 tells the others to listen to him, "he knows what he's talking about." Further, No.3 demonstrates that he is very opinionated, a flaw in being objective.
• No. 10 is very biased, assuming that the defendant lied and is guilty. "You know what you're dealing with." Later, he angrily exclaims,

We don't owe him a thing. He got a fair trial, didn't he? You know what that trial cost?....You're not going to tell us that we're supposed to believe him, knowing what he is. I've lived among 'em all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that....

• No.3 is a bitter father, who has had conflicts with his son. These feelings he transfers to the defendant,

It's the kids. The way they are--you know? They don't listen. I've got a kid.... When he was fifteen, he hit me in the face. He's big, you know. I haven't seen him in three years. Rotten kid! You work your heart out...."

He, thus, assumes that the defendant is guilty because he is a youth, and as such has no respect. The negative assumptions against the defendant certainly hinder their logical reasoning in arriving at a verdict.

Among the other jurors, there are lesser assumptions, but they, too, are dangerous. For instance, No.4, a man of position and wealth, assumes that his judgments more than the others jurors. No. 7 is a selfish salesman who just wants to get his duty as juror finished. His thinking is shallow; for example, he asks,

"Look, supposing you answer me this. If the kid didn't kill him, who did?....Do me a favor. Wake me up when this is over....I've had enough."

Only No.8 makes a good assumption, that the boy may not be guilty of murder. His assumption is one which all must make in legal cases:  The defendant is not guilty until proven, and there must be no doubt involved. "It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first."