Category: 12 Angry Men

When a leader walks into a room, the passion of truth should enter with them. Authentic leadership does not emerge out of a vacuum. Convictions are beliefs that hold us in our grip. The movie 12 Angry Men portrays the conviction (not guilty) of juror 8 and his use of visual influencing tactics to impact the unanimous decision of “guilty” of the remaining 11 jurors’.

The 1957 film is set in a jury room with 12 jurors who have different traits, behaviours and view points, and are responsible to decide the fate of an 18-year-old boy who stabbed his father in the chest. The initial part of the movie does not disclose detailed information about the case except for the fact that it was a murder in the first degree, in which case, the death sentence is mandatory. The jurors have heard the facts, the testimonies and the law that applies to this case. Now the jurors must figure out if there is any reasonable doubt to charge the accused as not guilty and if no reasonable doubt, then in good conscience find the accused guilty of his actions. An important aspect of this movie is the use of argumentative theory by juror 8 who uses reasoning to evaluate the sequence of events of the crime to convince the other jurors to revaluate their arguments.

A leader plays and important role in the leadership process. A leader should demonstrate trust, a compelling vision, empathy, determination, consistency & integrity, and should have the potential to influence their followers’ behaviours and attitudes. This paper will illustrate the behaviours and traits demonstrated by the jurors including the rational persuasion of juror 8 that helps the group in arriving at a moral decision.

Juror 1

Juror 1 (foreman) reveals a laidback democratic leadership style where in he conducted the discussions in an orderly manner, for example in scenes where he ensured that each juror had the opportunity to present their opinion, he steered the discussions back from distraction and controlling the voting. However, he displayed emotions of frustration and gave up on controlling the group dynamics when juror 9 questions his ability to control the discussion.

Juror 2

Juror 2 displays an introvert personality. He is compliant and considers information before speaking or giving his opinion. He is portrayed as an anxious character and is seen who gets bullied by juror 3, for example when juror 2 points out that there are others who needs to share their opinion, juror 3 asks him to be quiet. The introverted personality type is only a preference and merely a set of unchangeable behaviours rules. This change of personality is noted when juror 2 steps up and voices out details about how the stab wound would have been made by the accused if the accused was shorter (5 feet 7 inches) than the victim (6 feet 2 inches).

Juror 3

Juror 3 is the lead opponent who displays anger and aggression, He is prejudiced and stereotypes the accused as it reminded him of his son who left home because they got into an argument and was hit by his won son. He demonstrates expert power based on the amount of facts he has on the case, but his interpersonal effects of anger on negotiation behaviour dominates the emotional state of his own behaviour. There is use of intimidation shows signs of disrespect, irritability and loss of concentration. For example, when juror 9 tries to explain the reasons why the old man’s testimony could be for reasons that he wanted to be known and quoted, juror 3 shows his irritation and indicates the old man could be confused in his facts. There was display of self-fulfilling prophecy triggered by prejudice and ruthlessness of juror 2.

Juror 4

Juror 4 uses sound arguments based on the facts available to establish his initial verdict of the accused being guilty. However, through the movie, it is noted that he keeps an open mind to understand the opinion of others and reanalyzes the evidence and witnesses. For example, when juror 9 brings up details of the female witness, who possibly wore glasses, and saw the accused stabbing his father. Logical points outlined by juror 8 about the female witness not wearing her glasses when she sleeps and the possibility that she only saw a blur of a man stabbing the father made juror 4 consider his verdict to not guilty. The discussions between juror 4 and 8 are part of a shared leadership situation where influence is exerted to achieve successful outcomes .

Juror 5

Juror 5 is a very quiet participant and is sensitive to personal maters, especially when juror 9 shows his preconception of slum raised children being violent. Nonetheless, juror 5 speaks up when required and raises a valid point about how the knife is used through his experience witnessing knife-fights. He is seen as one of the jurors who focussed on the facts of the trial.

Juror 6

Juror 6 was having difficulty to make up his mind on the verdict. He looks for a motive, which can prove the accused was guilty. However, he couldn’t explain the motive to the other members of the jury. In one instance, juror 6 demonstrates a strong personality by defending juror 9 when juror 3 shows disrespect.

Juror 7

Juror 7 is impatient, rude disrespectful and tries to steer away from further discussions in the case as he felt that all the facts were clearly presented. His focus is on the baseball game which seemed more important than justice. He displays a weak personality by being unassertive, uncooperative and stubborn especially when he states that juror 8 could not change his mind even if he kept talking more about the case. Juror 7 lacked self-insight and made poor choices in dealing with the situation.

Juror 8

Juror 8 is seen as an effective leader that extends beyond managerial authority, relying on influence through personal interactions and positive relations, empathizing and making others feel confident and comfortable. Its not easy to stand alone and have a conviction without knowing if you truly believe in it and this is where juror 8 stands at the start of the movie. Juror 8 transformed in a leader linking virtue and moral character as represented by Socratic and Confucian typologies. For example, juror 8 did not the answer to where the accused was guilty of not, but he put forward his thought in the form of another question asking if everyone was willing to send an 18-year old to the electric chair. He felt that the lawyer of the defendant should have probed more questions and that the cross-examination with the witnesses was not enough. He listened to the opinions of others even though he didn’t agree with them and provided them the opportunity to speak their mind. Juror 8 was open to experience, more imaginative (example: visual re-enactment of the old man from the bed to the man door) and strategic in his approach when evaluating the exhibits of the crime . Exhibiting awareness to one’s right, fair treatment (example: when juror 8 encourages juror 3 to provide his opinion), social consciousness and procedural justice forces the compelling need for ethical conduct in leaders. There is also display of democratic leadership style by juror 8 where he considered involving all members to vote multiple times during the discussions in order to ascertain the stance taken by the other jurors.

Juror 9

By empowering followers, leaders encourage and aid individuals to cope with uncertainty, beyond their own limits. Juror 9 is a quiet and cautious character who saw logic and empathy in juror 8’s approach. That encouraged him to provide the support to juror 8 and be the second person to vote not guilty.

Juror 10

Juror 10 displays is an example of a poor team player. He keeps interrupting the discussions and disrupting the thought flow and course of discussion which annoy all the jurors. Automatic categorization of an individual as a member of a social group can unconsciously trigger stereotyping and prejudice to that group even if these reactions are denied (Stone & Moskowitz, 2011). With prejudice obscuring the truth and facts, juror 10 displays ignorance and arrogance in dealing with the situation.

Juror 11

Juror 11 was very analytical about the case before changing his verdict. He points out minor details of the investigation that were missed, for example, wouldn’t the accused be afraid to come back to collect the knife, if he really killed his father. Diagnosing and addressing situations of inequity and injustice is a collaborative reasoning and learning experience. This is an example when juror 11 tries to explain “reasonable doubt’ to juror 7 and the importance for him and his fellow jurors to have the opportunity to make the best possible decision in a democratic country.

Juror 12

Juror 12 was the only character that could be easily swayed between the verdicts. He shows very little interest and is distracted during the discussions. He displays various personality traits and does not have strong decision-making abilities. He is influenced by the majority.

Conclusion

Given that the jury was had different backgrounds, there was a lot of conflict in their views. 11 jurors came into the room with a pre-determined notions and decision except for juror 8 who explores and debates the facts and evidence that helped the other jurors change their vote to “not guilty”. This is a case of verdict-driven debate that changed into an evidence-driven debate that took 96 minutes to reach group consensus only because one man demonstrated analytical intelligence and empathy towards the case and the accused.

The issues of injustice and possibilities to follow the wrong conclusions during the jurors’ analyzing the case in the court can be considered as the most controversial aspects of the process which results can be irreversible. All these problems are revealed in the movie 12 Angry Men directed by William Friedkin which was released in 1997.

However, in spite of the main theme of legitimacy discussed in the movie, some important aspects of the social psychology can be discussed using the examples of relations and interactions between the characters of the movie. The main two aspects which should be effectively analyzed are the problem of stereotypes and the question of the successful leadership.

The plot of the movie is based on the story of a young Spanish-American boy who is accused in killing his father, and the main task of the jurors is to decide whether he is guilty or innocent. The jurors have their own personal vision of the case and are inclined to accuse the boy without paying much attention to the discussion of the case’s details.

However, there is Juror # 8 who does not want to follow the viewpoint of the majority of the group and insists on the further detailed analysis of the case (12 angry men, 1997).

The peculiarities of the manner to persuade the public and lead the persons’ to making their own right conclusions which is demonstrated by Juror # 8 can be discussed in the field of the social psychology with references to its main aspects along with the group’s inclination to follow the stereotypes and bias.

The main difficulty which complicated the jurors’ clear vision of the problem can be discussed as the progress of stereotypes in their attitudes to the people. While discussing the peculiar features of the case, the jurors focus on their beliefs about definite groups of people and the possible characteristics which can be used to describe their behavior.

Thus, accusing the boy in murdering his father, the jurors reveal their stereotypes about those people who grow in poverty in slums (12 angry men, 1997). Following these stereotypes, the jurors are inclined to wrongly interpret the boy’s possible actions with references to their vision of the case according to their stereotypes.

Moreover, the situation is also complicated by the combination of stereotypes and discriminative views against the representatives of the minority groups (Franzoi, 2002).

Nevertheless, Juror # 8 is not so categorical in his discussion of the issue as the other jurors influenced by their own stereotyped visions. According to the aspects of the social psychology, it is possible to speak about the juror’s revealing the effective leader’s behavior. The leader is a person who can motivate the others to reach the goals and achieve high results (Franzoi, 2002).

The behavior of Juror # 8 can be considered as the behavior of the task-oriented leader. In spite of the fact his leadership is not open and not formal, Juror # 8 is successful in controlling the situation of the discussion with the help of different conversation tactics and a series of thought-provoking questions.

Juror # 8 realizes the principles of the coaching leadership with focusing on creating the supportive atmosphere during the discussion.

The principles of social psychology are regularly realized by people in their everyday interactions. That is why different aspects of the social psychology can be involved in the analysis of the characters’ behavior and actions in movies, novels, and shows.

References

12 angry men. (1997). [Video] Web.

Franzoi, S. (2002). Social Psychology. USA: Mcgraw-Hill College.

The jury in Twelve Angry Men struggles to achieve a unanimous ruling for various reasons. The author demonstrates how difficult it is to get a decision when jurors have preconceived beliefs and bring personal prejudice to a case, as well as Jurors who lack interest. These concerns, without a doubt, produce disputes and difficulties in the Jury system, highlighting a potential flaw in the democratic process. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that Juror 8 is one of the few Jurors who first deliberate honestly and seriously and wants justice. Rose argues that active participation is required to ensure that the jury system works as intended and that the final verdict is simpler to attain when this occurs. Rose believes it is difficult for the jury to reach a decision when the Jurors have predetermined notions and exhibit bigotry.

The author illustrates the problem with people having personal prejudices in a case since it can blind them to the facts. This, in turn, makes it difficult for the Jurors to reach a consensus since it impairs their capacity to reason and understand things from another’s perspective. This point is emphasized by the venomous Juror 10, who represents bigotry and prejudice. Juror 10 exemplifies racism’s potential strength, believing that “the kids who crawl outta those places are real trash”(Rose 30). Finally, this preconceived notion makes it impossible to form a realistic view of the subject since it closes the door to his capacity to consider it from a different perspective. Furthermore, he finds it challenging to achieve an agreement since he is unwilling to separate the “facts” from the “fancy” (Rose 11). As a result of his reluctance to recognize reasonable doubt in the case, jury 10’s animosity might be seen as causing difficulty in concluding.

Furthermore, the dispute created by numerous jurors’ predispositions adds to the difficulties in obtaining a final decision. This is because it fosters an environment of resentment and suspicion among the jurors. For instance, jurors 3 and 8 disagree when jury 8 refers to juror 3 as a “sadist,” and a “self-appointed public avenger” who wants the “boy to die because [he] personally want it, not because of the facts” (Rose 73). This causes resentment between the two jurors, which is not resolved until jury 3 sees his bias and votes ‘not guilty. Nevertheless, his hostility toward jury 8 makes convincing him of the reasonable doubt in the case exceedingly difficult (Rose 73). Juror 3’s rage eventually diminishes, and he recognizes his prejudice when it is brought to his attention. This procedure is quite complex, which adds to the difficulty of obtaining a final decision.

Rose emphasizes the difficulties in reaching a final judgment by highlighting those who bring personal predisposition to a case. The author emphasizes the impact of personal prejudice on one’s capacity to consider somewhat via jury 3. Juror 3’s emotional baggage prevents him from effectively participating in the democratic process and determining the defendant’s guilt or innocence (Rose 72). Rose claims it is easier to agree with rigorous thinking since bias inhibits individuals from carrying out their civic responsibility. Juror 3’s prejudices and experiences are underscored by his notion that the defendant has “got to burn” (Rose 72). This implies that it is difficult to understand things from a different perspective if an individual is preoccupied with personal difficulties.

Juror 3’s unwillingness to listen to the other jurors’ viewpoints and only agree with those who see it from his point of view highlights his difficulty in reaching a final judgment. This is emphasized by his repeated agreement with people who condemn the youngster, as he remarks, “listen to this man. “He knows what he’s talking about,” and “he’s absolutely right” (Rose 35). His personal bias prohibits him from considering the other Jurors’ perspectives, and he can only agree with those who condemn the defendant. Rose expresses how difficult it is to obtain a final judgment when prejudiced jurors are closed-minded and unwilling to entertain different viewpoints.

Rose emphasizes how difficult it might be to get a final judgment when people demonstrate a lack of interest in the issue and are unwilling to think for themselves. The author argues that individuals unwilling to take the matter seriously endanger the system and make reaching a final conclusion difficult (Rose 72). Juror 7 is uninterested in the jury process because he is more preoccupied with his well-being than honestly debating and discussing the issue (Rose 75). He symbolizes individuals who prioritize self-interest over public responsibility, making it difficult for him to contribute to the ultimate judgment conclusion.

While reaching a final judgment is challenging, Rose says that the jury system necessitates involvement for a verdict to be reached. Juror 8 is one of the few jurors willing to go against the majority and safeguard the democratic process (Rose 12). It is difficult to conclude since Juror 8 is the only one who first perceives this as “grave responsibility” because the “death sentence is mandatory” (Rose 12). He expresses concern for the matter by inciting debate and seeking justice. However, the fact that many other jurors need help understanding the procedure shows that reaching an agreement will be easier with active participation.

Active engagement is what permits the process to grow and makes it simpler to reach a decision. This is seen in the willingness of quiet Jurors such as Juror 2 to engage and contribute to the case, making it simpler to reach a final judgment. This is shown when he interrogates witnesses “about the business about the stab wound and how it was made” (Rose 92). His capacity to participate in debate implies that involvement is required in reaching a final decision. Furthermore, Juror 9’s involvement catches up on the elderly lady’s eyesight, which is the ultimate result. As a result, Rose emphasizes that participation from the jury system is essential for a final decision to be obtained. Furthermore, with participation, reaching an agreement is easier.

In the United States in 1957, juries were designed to reflect a cross-section of society, consisting solely of white men of all ages, values, and opinions. This collision of perspectives, particularly in Twelve Angry Men, automatically leads to disagreement, making it exceedingly difficult for the jury to reach a unanimous conclusion. Juror 11, for example, an immigrant from Germany, evidently valued the democratic system enormously due to his experiences in other undemocratic nations (Rose 14). Other jurors, on the other hand, such as juror 3, have grown to take the democratic system and the opportunity to serve on a jury for granted. Jury 3’s remark shows this when asked about the trial, that “[he] was falling asleep” (Rose 14). Juror 3 has had many past experiences with this “social responsibility,” which has contributed to his lethargy. The audience might interpret this duality as evidence of the jury’s diversity of ideas. As a result, the process of reaching a decision becomes necessarily lengthy.

In conclusion, the author, Rose, emphasizes how difficult it is to get a unanimous decision when jurors have preconceived notions, prejudice, and bigotry and are uninterested in the issue. With detailed and specific examples, the author provides a clear depiction of how jurors 10, 3,9, and 7 prejudice and personal opinions affect the final verdict. He does, however, propose that when Jurors contribute and actively engage, a consensus is eventually obtained.

Work Cited

Rose, Reginald. Twelve Angry Men. 1954.

The court delegated to the jury the task of determining whether or not the accused was guilty of murder and premeditated homicide accusations. The article describes how several characters have demonstrated their knowledge, efficacy, ethics, and talents in an attempt to reach the proper conclusion about the accused mainly focusing on jurors 1 and 5. Juror 1 makes an admirable effort to keep other jurors in line as he is the foreman of the jury responsible for keeping the group under control (Alazas 7). Juror 5 is a courteous person who seems shy and does not talk during most of the deliberations of other jurors since he understands when to speak despite his quiet demeanor.

Juror 5 has a good understanding of slum life because he admits to having lived in one his entire life and tells how rubbish was piled up in his backyard. This knowledge helped him during the demonstration on switching knives and contested usage (Reginald 21). Moreover, the other jurors were focused on their agendas while the rest of the jury was focused on providing the proper judgment on whether the accused was guilty or not (Reginald 56). This is notably clear with juror 7, who is focused on adjourning the conference so that he may return home while others are attempting to get the right decision.

Juror 1 presided over the deliberation, which had the goal of determining whether the accused was guilty or not. He orders the jurors to sit down, for example, and when jury 8 continues to stare out the window, he tells him to seat (Reginald 13). He also spends most of his time trying to keep the peace and helps to keep the conversation alive. Juror 5 is hesitant to express his opinions but speaks out when the other jurors criticize residents from the slum. He is defensive in that he tries to defend the accused because they both originated from the slums.

Works Cited

Alazas, Jacquelyn Grace R. Turning Sorrow into Service: Juror Five in Twelve Angry Men. Diss. Regent University, 2020.

Reginald, Rose.Twelve Angry Men. The Dramatic Publishing Company, 1964, p. 21, 56, 13, Web.

Introduction

The movie offers a dramatic scene in a court setting providing the audiences with legal thrills concerning an endless quantity of fictional and realistic evidence concerning a murder case (Abramson 1). However, few scenes concentrate on the events outside the courtroom presenting the themes of transparency and accountability within the police department. This brings the concepts of the good and the bad cops within the police units. These perfectly rhyme with the intelligent investigators, and forensic groups who get involved with similar experiences. The lawyers present high ambitions as substantiated by the proceedings of the court, as well as, events outside the courtroom. In addition, the jurors show expressionless faces given their roles concerning the presented cases. They have become diminished into intermittent and mandatory response groups by the court systems (Abramson 1).

Summary of the movie

‘Twelve Angry Men’ pursues the judgment procedure that the jury undertakes in solving a murder case while still following ongoing adjustments of eleven jury members (Rose 2). The setting is a courtroom on a hot afternoon summer day. The scene starts with the raising of the courtroom curtains after which the judge proclaims that the dependant gets charged with first-degree slaughter. The judge continues to state that such an offense leads to the compulsory death penalty. Additionally, the judge addresses the jury concerning the case by offering them the mandate to exonerate the dependant in case of a logical query (Del 30).

The jurors are entire of the male gender and sit around a big conference table. In this setting, no air conditioning is presenting hot conditions that contrast with the ensuing court environment (Rose 3). It seems like the jury has already made up thoughts concerning the judgment of the dependant. It can be substantiated by the scorns that the dependant obtains from some constituents of the jury. The story presented is that the young adult purchases a knife although it soon gets lost the night his father gets stabbed. However, from the look of things, the young man seems guilty since the story about the loss of the knife seems unambiguous. Other jurors condemn the young man although one juror understands that one is never guilty until proven so.

The juror feels obliged to ensure that justice transpires in the presented case. He feels that sentencing the young man without substantial evidence would be a failure of the court and the whole justice system. Soon after, the jury discusses the presented case by laying down the facts (Rose 3). Therefore, a review of what the jurors know is undertaken. According to the witnesses, the old man existed, below the area in which the murder took place. By the presented witness, he heard the son warn his father that he would exterminate him. The witness further explains the events concerning that dreadful night. He said he heard someone fall and later on saw the son freeing the scene.

According to juror four, the story appears to be insubstantial or rather unconvincing. In defense, the son claims to have attended a movie even though there are no witnesses to substantiate this claim. Following witnesses, a woman alleges to have observed everything through her window of a high train. In the court session, the presented claims were considered substantial evidence. In addition, more information was obtained on the frequent beatings that the father inflicted on his son. The son had recently been detained in connection to other unlawful acts such as mugging. The son had also been in a reform institution after he stabbed someone with a knife.

According to juror eight, numerous questions were that presented queries were unasked and thus unreciprocated presenting a dilemma in the whole case (Rose 4). The juror requests for the murder weapon and presents resentments towards the jurors who assume that the boy stabbed his father. Therefore, he presents another perception that another person holding a similar knife stabbed the father. Controversially, the juror presents a knife similar to the murder weapon insisting that the young man tells the truth.

Personal opinion

In my opinion, the young man may be either innocent or guilty since the presented evidence and witnesses provide little substantiation towards the judgment. The court and the jury need to acquire adequate and solid evidence to convict a person. The jury seems to have already made their verdict even with the inadequate evidence and witnesses presented in the case. The court system is required to prove someone to be guilty or not and not to mock or criticize the dependants.

Convicting a dependant without an illustration of guiltiness is often reflected on as an infringement of the privilege of the dependant. Presenting someone as a suspect of committing any unlawful acts, never guarantees that they are the persons who committed the acts. Therefore, suspects ought to be treated as innocent individuals until the court through adequate evidence manages to bring out the truth behind such acts. However, in this case, the jurors treat the suspect as the guilty party regardless of whether adequate evidence has been presented.

A jury system made up of unqualified individuals in the field of law, cannot offer sound reasons, concerning certain mysterious happenings. The jury system ought to be composed of people who can think constructively in line with the presented cases. Juror 12 who presents adequate reasoning, which can be utilized, in solving the puzzle presented in the case, can substantiate this. The jury in the movie is not fit to carry out executions given their inadequate knowledge of the implications of awarding suspects undeserved sentences. In the case of the young man, offering a verdict on the death penalty cannot be reversed meaning that no mistakes ought to be made in making such judgments (Del 434).

Recommended changes

In my opinion, the recommendation that needs to be implemented is the involvement of a jury system that is not biased, open-minded, and that offers good substantiation before making ambiguous decisions. The jury system ought to be made up of people with adequate knowledge of the law with relevant or related professionalism.

Reasons for the changes

The jury system requires open-minded individuals who can relate things, and manage to solve complex cases presented by the court. The system necessitates individuals knowledgeable in law to apply the principles learned in the resolution of complex cases. The system has to have unbiased individuals to prevent obstruction of justice. These individuals need to have critical thinking in the decisions they make since these decisions, however, small they may seem affect a great deal of the dependant especially if they are innocent.

Conclusion

Decision-making in criminal law plays a chief role and its execution in pursuit of justice ought to be carried out following the criminal procedures. The court system necessitates carrying out a thorough investigation and substantiation before offering a person any judgment. In doing so, justice can be awarded most efficiently thus; preventing innocent people from suffering for the actions of another individual.

Works Cited

Abramson, Jeffrey. Anger at Angry Jurors. 2007. Web.

Del, Carmen R. V. Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2006. Print.

Rose, Reginald. Twelve Angry Men. 2010. Web.

American courtroom drama “Twelve Angry Men” is a perfect instance to reveal how the decision-making process can be influenced. It describes the examination of homicide by twelve jurors, one of which contradicts others’ attitudes towards the case (13Youtoo, 2012). It is possible to reflect on how participants change their minds during the process. The seventh juror agrees to vote for not guilty because overwise the conversation would last too long for him. The third juror finally realizes that he only projecting his feelings about his son on the defendant while the tenth one just sticks to the other’s positions at the end. The fourth juror is logical and he is influenced by facts that prove the innocence of the defendant, and so does the sixth one, persuaded by the new case details. The twelfth juror is not interested in the case and changes his opinion many times, tending, therefore, to the prevalent decision, as the second one does, because of the lack of confidence. The ninth juror is calm and thoughtful which makes him change his mind easily, while the eleventh one begins to doubt because he believes in justice. Finally, the first juror, who is the foreman, tries to be fair while listening to others and voting, and he is also the one who does not believe in the boy’s guilt initially.

I should admit that if I were a juror, I would, like all others but one, immediately consider the boy to be guilty, because of the persuasive evidence provided. Despite other jurors, who have personal motivation to complete the case as soon as possible, I would be deceived by how the story was presented. Some men want to go home early, while others are focused on facts provided, which are against the defendant, that prevent jurors from deepening further into the murder. Some jurors have related experiences or characteristics that make them vote for one or another decision (13Youtoo, 2012). Although I do not have any preconceptions, connections, or features, which other jurors have, I still would change my opinion after all the participants’ contributed to the case’s details like the fourth one.

Reference

13Youtoo. (2012). 12 Angry men [Video]. YouTube.

The movie is about twelve jurors who have to work together to make a decision on whether the little boy, who is accused of murdering his father, is guilty or not guilty. They are expected to be in mutual consent for their decision to hold. Unity is vital as no single person is able to work alone.

Much as the jurors may have different reasons why they will vote for either guilty or not guilty, but they must share them in order to come up with one resolution. The movie seeks to give the benefits of working as a group in matters which require diverse approach.

Initially we see all the jurors except juror no. 8, have concluded that the boy is guilty without giving much scrutiny to the evidence provided, they want to give their verdict as quickly as possible. In a group some of the decisions need secrecy, since other people will just follow the majority.

This is evidenced when juror no. 8 pokes some holes on the evidence given and challenges the other jurors, he does not get anybody to support him, but when he suggests for a secret ballot vote, in which he does not vote, it results to another not guilty vote (Fonda, Rose & Lumet, 1957). Some jurors: for example juror no. 7, have their person commitments and would want the process be cut short no matter the outcome, therefore, individually will not give fair judgment.

There is a broad perspective of looking at issues when working as a group than when working individually, as can be noted from the movie, the reasons for doubt whether the boy is guilty, brought forward by juror no.8 are not very evident to the other jurors, and he has to explain this to them.

As the discussion goes on more points come clear, this can be seen when juror no.2, who was in the guilty camp realizes that the wound was a downward stab, which is doubtful given that the accused is one foot shorter than the victim according to juror no. 5 (Fonda, Rose & Lumet, 1957).

Working in a group can be time consuming to certain individuals, and in other instances interferes with people’s schedules, as the movie points out when juror no.3 becomes impatient with the process, juror no. 7 just changes his vote so that the voting will be faster to allow him attend a baseball game to which he has tickets (Donnelly, 1997). The decisions seem irrational but other members will not allow that happen; for example, juror no. 11 is seen to question the move of juror no.7.

Objectivity is also enhanced within a group than it could have been under individual circumstances. It is evidenced from the movie that juror no.10 has a negative attitude about people from slums, as he thinks they kill each other time and again, and therefore anybody from slums with murder case is guilty. Juror no.3 has a bad relationship with his son, which makes him believe that the little boy committed the crime, assuming that fathers and sons usually have poor relationships (Donnelley, 1997).

In the end, their subjective reasons for convicting the little boy do not carry the day, as they are convinced otherwise hence treating the case differently from their personal experiences, this is clear in the film. It is also evident that in a group members; for example juror no.8, will insist on what they think is true, this leads to others trying to reason it out, eventually reaching a mutual non-subjective position (Fonda, Rose & Lumet 1957).

If the jurors were working individually, the boy could have been condemned to being a culprit for a crime he did not commit and another example of people who go down the books of history, to show how unfair the course of justice can be to others.

Since they were working as a group this was not case, various minds were put together and they unraveled the mystery, they were able to get several points of ambiguity in the evidence and therefore saved the head of the boy. Additionally, they were able to come out more bonded than before as can be seen when juror no. 8 gives juror no.3 his coat and exchanges names with juror no.9.

References

Fonda, H., Rose, R., & Lumet, S. (1957). Twelve Angry Men. United States: United Artists.

Donnelly, A. T. (1997). Twelve Angry Men. Los Angeles: MGM Television Showtime Networks.

The Architect, Davis (the diagram scene)

In the diagram scene, Davis’ actions throughout the discussion portray him as a very wise man. He analyzes everything with objectivity. He does not have a fixed position on any of the testimonies in the case. His wisdom comes out very clearly in the scene involving the diagram of the house where the 18-year-old boy lived with his father.

He chooses to demonstrate the existence of reasonable doubt in the story heard in court through viewing the diagram of the house. He shows the rest of the jury that the old man could not have managed to see the boy run out of the house after committing the murder. According to Fisher and Ury (2011), a good negotiation outcome should be wise. Hence, Davis exhibits all the aspects of wisdom using his demonstration.

Davis is also kind and caring. He cares about the life of the boy. In this scene, he condemns the third jurist for taking the case very personal. Precisely, the third jurist says, “The boy stabbed his father, and we are letting him slip through our fingers” (DUREIDO, 2014). Davis interprets this statement as an indication of hidden motives. He reprimands the third jurist by referring to him as “a public avenger” because of fixing his mind on executing the boy (DUREIDO, 2014).

He also asks him if he is the boy’s executioner. This criticism indicates Davis’ readiness to handle the case humanely. It aims at convincing all the other jurists to be considerate, which is in line with Fisher and Ury’s assertion that decisions in a negotiation must meet its legitimate interests (Fisher & Ury, 2011). Juxtaposing his views to those of the other jurists clearly shows that he is interested in meeting the legitimate interests of the negotiations.

The Third Jurist (the diagram scene)

In the diagram scene, the third jurist is an extremely subjective man. He comes to the negotiation table with a fixed mind and not ready to change. In the diagram scene, he says, “What’s the matter with you? You all know he is guilty. He stabbed the father, and you let him slip through our fingers” (DUREIDO, 2014).

This statement shows that he is not ready to listen to other facts that exonerate the boy from the murder of his father. Worse still, he disproves Davis’ opinion even before he is through with his explanation. He says, “I have heard a lot of dishonesty but this one takes the cake” (DUREIDO, 2014).

He is even ready to fight Davis for insisting that the boy is not guilty. His subjectivity is also evident in his lack of interest in Davis’ demonstration. He stands far from where Davis does the demonstration. His subjectivity makes the negotiation longer that it should have been. Fisher and Ury (2011) argue that “the more you declare the impossibility of changing your position, the more it becomes so” (p. 12).

Secondly, he is very violent. He shouts at the jury for paying attention to Davis’ demonstration. Worse still, he attacks Davis for calling him a public avenger. This violence is a result of his subjectivity. He is very committed to defending his position even if it means engaging in a physical fight. Such a reaction contradicts Fisher and Ury’s definition of a good negotiation. According to them, a wise negotiation must build a good relationship between the conflicting parties rather than destroying it (Fisher & Ury, 2011).

The diagram Scene

The scene opens with an argument about what the old man said in court. Some characters insist that he said he ran to the front door while others insist that he walked to the door. In the end, many of them agree that he walked to the door. Davis reminds them that the old man also said he moved from his bedroom to the front door in fifteen seconds. The third jurist does not agree that the old man said fifteen seconds.

He insists he said twenty seconds. Davis requests for the diagram of the house and uses it to demonstrate to the entire jury that it was impossible for the old man to take fifteen seconds moving from his bedroom to the front door. He then uses seats to demarcate the distance between the bedroom and the front door. He counts a total of 55 feet and imitates the old man’s walking style. He takes 44 seconds to cover the distance. The third jurist is very agitated about the demonstration. He attacks Davis for allegedly misleading the jury.

The scene shows the third jurists’ lack of wisdom. It also shows how far he can go to defend his position. Fisher and Ury discourage such behavior in a negotiation. They believe that such behavior prolongs the negotiation (Fisher & Ury, 2011). The scene also confirms their assertion that the presence of many parties brings about many varied opinions that the parties have to defend (Fisher & Ury, 2011).

Conclusion

The diagram scene portrays Davies and the third jurist as having two different standpoints about whether the boy killed his father or not. Davis goes to the negotiation table with an objective mind while the third jurist goes there with a position to defend.

Davis argues that they should not be very sure about what happened before analyzing all the facts while the third jurists believes it is obvious that the boy is guilty. Eventually, the entire jury agrees that there is reasonable doubt in the facts presented in court. Davis’s style of negotiation agrees with Fisher and Ury’s conception of the proper way to conduct negotiations: parties should not have positions to defend.

References

Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (2011). Getting to yes. New York: Penguin Publishers.

DUREIDO, F. (2014, Apr. 8). 12 Angry men 1957. [Video file].