In 12 Angry Men, a group of twelve jurors are deciding the fate of a young 16-year-old boy accused of killing his father. The film features a diverse group of twelve American jurors gathered to determine the guilt or innocence of a 16-year-old defendant in a seemingly open-and-shut murder trial. The film illustrates both the advantages and disadvantages of group decision making, personality and leadership models, stages of group development, and the basics of social power social influence tactics and results. This essay will analyze Rose's use of the unity of time, plot, and setting in 12 Angry Men to evoke the audience's attention to the importance of decision-making and interactions among jurors. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayRose manipulates dialogue, captions, and foreshadowing through repetition to explore how justice is achieved in the jury trial. Rose illustrated and influenced readers' opinions by using characterization and preferred reading to portray different jurors in different ways. He builds the 3rd juror, with a personal history parallel to the defendants. This juror is in a broken relationship with his 16-year-old son. This influences Juror 3's verdict against the boy as in the captions; Rose notes that her father is reeling from the emotional pain of her rejection and hearing that the victim was "stabbed in the chest." Rose foreshadows her revenge agenda due to her rigid, patriarchal view of parenting. Throughout the work there are repeated references to the "knife", which plays a fundamental role in the ensuing fact-finding process. As the case progresses, the stab wounds symbolically refer to the third juror's raw and personal emotions as opposed to his desire to teach the boy a lesson. Rose writes in the captions how the Guard always closes and opens the room. For example, "in the silence, the sound of the door being closed is heard through the ears", this becomes a metaphorical representation of the closed minds of the jurors. Rose assigns each juror a personal and professional story to show how his or her life experience informs his or her opinions and values, as well as the influence it has on his or her ability to evaluate evidence. A stockbroker par excellence accustomed to making difficult decisions under pressure, the 4th juror reacts calmly and sensitively; he strongly insists on following "the logical progression of facts" and the way in which these facts occurred. As an architect, the eighth juror is calm and thoughtful and methodically investigates the evidence. Significantly, the 4th juror's glasses become a key to the fact-finding process. They are also used symbolically to parallel the woman's eyewitness testimony, which is also obscured by the glasses. In the captions, Rose notes that by "taking off his glasses," he too becomes clouded by personal impressions and lacks foresight; it becomes "obvious" to him that "the boy's whole story was flimsy." Rose uses literary devices to portray the deliberative process of the jurors. The eighth juror is the main protagonist of the story; he has conflicting opinions with the other 11 jurors as he is the only one who initially votes for the boy's guilt. The eighth juror disputes the general consensus of the other jurors and refutes the points in question. So far in the book up to page 30, the eight juror is the main protagonist as all the points revolve around convincing him to change his verdict from not guilty to guilty..