One Not-Guilty Vote in “Twelve Angry Men” Film

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Juror 8’s Persuasion Skills
Conclusion

Introduction

“Twelve Angry Men” is a 1957 play set in the court of law in New York City. The play entails an overheated courthouse where an 18-year-old young man faces trial for killing his dad. At the beginning of the film, the panel members talked casually and made it evident that the man was guilty. The first round of voting yielded eleven guilty votes and one non-guilty vote, which came from Juror 8. According to Juror 8, the other Juror ought to intensely discuss facts before making the final decisions. The other judges reacted violently against the dissenting vote leading to a discussion on why the judges thought the Puerto Rican boy was guilty, hoping to convince Juror 8 to adopt similar ideologies. Contrarily, Juror number 8 persuasively allowed the other jurors to review facts logically, leading to a unanimous not guilty verdict. Indeed, the movie revolves around Juror 8’s persuasion skills to acquit the young man regardless of his colleague’s opposition. Juror 8 got various traits like inductive reasoning, kairos, phronesis, demeanor, and body language, making it easy to persuade the other jurors to analyze facts and make a unanimous, not guilty decision.

Juror 8’s Persuasion Skills

Juror 8’s intelligence and inductive reasoning helped him overpower other judges’ decisions and persuaded them to acquit the boy of the criminal charges. Through the keen synthesis of the provided evidence, Juror 8 developed a general principle and influenced their colleagues’ viewpoints. The Judge stated that he could not send the boy a death sentence without discussing it first and questioned whether he was automatically guilty because the slums were breeding grounds for criminals. An excellent example of inductive reasoning was when Juror 8 brought up the question of the main witness in the case. Although the man had attested that he overheard the boy yell, “I’m going to kill you,” Juror 8 questioned the man’s ability to listen to the exact words in an elevated passing train. Juror 8 made brilliant connections and rhetorical questions about the testimonies and proved that the older man could not hear those exact words. Besides, the inductive reasoning led Juror 8 to conclude that the witnesses’ poor eyesight and physical health could not allow the witness to identify the boy on the train. His logical reasoning led him to discover his practical wisdom (phronesis) by showing that the criminal used a downward stabbing movement, proving that the man who killed him was taller. Hence, Juror 8 is a clever man with more significant inductive reasoning, which made him identify the flaws in the testimonies and convince the jury members that some presented facts may, at times, be wrong.

Juror 8 also uses the right or opportune moment (Kairos) to challenge the witnesses and change the verdict of the other jury members. The Judge used kairos, timeliness, symmetry, balance, etiquette, and awareness of rhetorical circumstances that open moments of opportunity. Juror 8’s persuasion skill helped him convince the other judges that the young man was innocent. The talent is evident in the scene where Juror 8 asked about the presentation of the knife, which matched the one he had in his pocket. The other eleven jurors had defined the tool as unusual and rare, and Juror 8 allowed the 4th Judge to open and manipulate the knife at some point. However, Juror 8 used this perfect timing to question the possibility of a similar type of knife. At this moment, he stood up and produced the knife he had in his pocket to expose the pawn in the broker’s comments. Although the Juror had a chance to present the knife during another period of the court battle, he used this perfect timing to persuade the judges by creating an emotional and intellectual impact.

Juror 8 has an outstanding appearance and body language that makes it easy to persuade others and avoid intimidation from the majority of judges. While Juror 7 tried to force his opinions and thoughts on Juror 8, the eighth Judge listened respectfully and calmly while stating his own, without returning seven’s attitude. Juror 8 practiced greater concession to the comments of Judge 7, whose opinions had annoying accusations. The Judge had more remarkable perseverance and resilience in seeking justice for the young man, making him use rhetorical jiu-jitsu to present his ideas in a rather non-accommodative and hostile environment. For instance, when Juror 3 became highly agitated with eight’s reasoning and began shouting, raging, screaming, and even lunging when speaking, Judge 8 responded to all the comments with the same tone that he used throughout the film. He showed calmness and more significant volume control in his heated debate with Jurors 7 and 3 since he did not bother to snap back at them but focused on his theory with a clear head. In sum, Juror 8 convinced the other jury members due to his eunoia (good personality) and more incredible soft skills like logic and reasoning, negotiation, emotional intelligence, communication, sense, and reasoning skills.

Notably, his ability to recreate the incident scene made it possible for the jury to recognize their erroneous and dramatic assumption. Juror 8 used phronesis to play the incident set to describe the state of the father’s body after the murder and persuade the judges nearer to an image to illustrate what happened. Using rhetorical jiu-jitsu, Juror 8 showed that it was impossible for the historical man, who claimed to have witnessed the ordeal, to limb to the front door within 15 seconds to catch the boy running down the staircase. The jury members slowly enacted the crime scene to determine how the witnesses offered false testimonies. The re-enactment allowed the jury to analyze how anyone other than the Puerto Rican boy could have killed the man. The re-enactment of the scenes in the case permitted Juror 8 to convince the other judges to evaluate the topic, which made them support his idea that the boy was not guilty.

Conclusion

The movie “12 Angry Men” revolves around using Juror 8’s persuasion skills like inductive reasoning, kairos, phronesis, demeanor, and body language to persuade the jury to analyze the presented case inductively. The entire film depicts Juror 8 as an excellent influencer due to his enhanced ability to reason as a friendly high leader in making changes to people’s opinions in the jury room. The Judge employs favorable personality traits and skills while defending the accused. He presented his arguments like a lawyer and proved his arguments throughout the play without being personally involved. The lack of Juror 8’s Eunoia and persuasive skills would have led to more significant prejudice over the boy’s case, making him accountable for the offense and preventing justice. The film “12 Angry Men” is an educative piece of work that can help elaborate the role of leadership in reducing rivalries and constructively integrating opposing views to develop effective decisions and coalitions.

Click Here To Order Now!

One Not-Guilty Vote in “Twelve Angry Men” Film

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)