Conflicts: The conflict is when 12 jurors have to decide whether a boy is guilty or non-guilty based from evidence they took notes on from listening in court. The boy is convicted of murdering his father and has the probability of the death penalty. The 12 jurors go to the conference room to discuss it with one another they have a vote. The vote is to go around the room and each juror verbally states “guilty” or “non-guilty.” After the vote, 11 jurors vote guilty of charge, while a lone juror votes non-guilty which causes great conflict with the other 11 jury members. The lone juror (Juror #8) says that the boy’s life should not be decided on just a vote, he thinks it should be discussed about. So the lone juror states his case on why he voted non-guilty. As he continues to speak he asks to have a revote. So after they tally up the votes, the number of jurors voting guilty and non-guilty has changed from 11-1 to 10-2. This causes and outrage of the 10 guilty jury voters. So as the 12 jurors argue amongst one another, each juror stating what he thinks; they bring out key evidence from the courtroom and continue to discuss and argue. At the end of the discussion of what was to be believed gone on for several hours, there were no guiltier jury voters; they had all changed their votes to non-guilty after Juror #8 convinced each of them of the scenarios of why he thought the boy should be proven not guilty.
Negotiation Techniques: Each juror had their own techniques on discussing the situation of the murder, whether it was using the facts, the witness, motives, and etc. Some of them were very loud and powerful with how they would discuss the murder, other were just calm and polite with how they handled the discussion or how they handl...
... middle of paper ...
...Juror # 11 is foreign, a watchmaker, respectful, thinks about the whole murder discussion, takes his time with his side of the argument. Finally, Juror # 12, he doesn’t speak all that much. I catch him throughout the video listening a lot. He seems to be a respectful man, and well rounded.
Message Learned: I learned from this film that when there comes a time where you end up deciding whether a person lives or not, you should take time to discuss or think about your decision and why it’s the right decision to be made or if it’s the correct decision to be made. Also trying to get through something because you have to be somewhere is not a great decision. Furthermore, using harmful words or sayings will get you nowhere in an argument, but being able to back up what you have to say in a somewhat polite manner can really help a lot with people having to listen to you.
This report is on a movie called, “12 Angry Men.” The movie is about 12 men that are the jury for a case where a young man is being accused of killing his father. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance (#1) Took charge and respectfully was now the leader. He asked what everyone’s votes were and all of the men except for Jack Lemmon (#8) voted the young man was guilty. Because Jack was the odd one that chose differently than the rest of the men, all of the other Jures, were defensive about the evidence just because they were all so confused. Courtney B. Vance took charge once again and calmly stated that everyone has their rights and lets have everyone explain the reasons why they thing the child is guilty or not guilty. Ossie Davis (#2) explained why he voted guilty. While explaining this he was very calm and wise. HE handled conflicts in the same way. Next was George C. Schott (#3) He also voted guilty. George was very st...
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
We are all different. We are all at least biased on one topic. Some people just look at the surface, while others dig deeper into the facts that were given. Reginald Rose demonstrated these points beautifully in 12 Angry Men. All of the Jurors bring a special part of their personality to the jury room, which is the beauty of having a jury. All of the jurors are different in their own unique way,
12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in their votes was if there was unanimous vote either guilty or not guilty among the 12 jurors. As the movie progressed the jurors ended up changing their minds as new evidence was brought to their attention by simple facts that were overlooked by the police and prosecutors in the initial investigation. Tempers were raised, and words flew, there was prejudice and laziness of a few of the jurors that affected the amount of time it took to go over all of the eye witness testimonies and evidence. The eye witness testimonies ended up being proven wrong and some of the evidence was thrown out because it was put there under false pretense.
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
Yet with the help of one aged yet wise and optimistic man he speaks his opinion, one that starts to not change however open the minds of the other eleven men on the jury. By doing this the man puts out a visual picture by verbally expressing the facts discussed during the trial, he uses props from the room and other items the he himself brought with him during the course of the trial. Once expressed the gentleman essentially demonstrate that perhaps this young man on trial May or may not be guilty. Which goes to show the lack of research, and misused information that was used in the benefit of the prosecution. For example when a certain factor was brought upon the trail; that being timing, whether or not it took the neighbor 15 seconds to run from his chair all the way to the door. By proving this right or wrong this man Juror #4 put on a demonstration, but first he made sure his notes were correct with the other 11 jurors. After it was
Twelve Angry Men is a depiction of twelve jurors who deliberate over the verdict of a young defendant accused of murder, highlighting many key communications concepts discussed throughout the semester. One of these concepts was the perspective of a true consensus, the complete satisfaction of a decision by all parties attributed. An array of inferences were illustrated in the movie (some spawning collective inferences) as well as defiance among the jurors. Each of these concepts play a role endorsing, or emphasizing the other. We can analyze the final verdict of the jurors and establish if there was a true consensus affecting their decision. In turn, we can analyze the inferences during the deliberation and directly link how they affect the consensus (or lack thereof). Defiance among the jurors was also directly
In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
...a unanimous vote of not guilty. The final scene takes place signifying the "adjourning stage". Two of the jurors, eight and three exchange the only character names mentioned during the film. The entire process of groupthink occurs in multiple ways that display its symptoms on individual behavior, emotions, and personal filters. These symptoms adversity affected the productivity throughout the juror's debate. In all, all twelve men came to an agreement but displayed group social psychological aspects.
The problem that has been tormenting the eight juror is that no other jurors, other then the fifth juror agree with him. The eight juror claims that the boy is not guilty, but since everyone believes that he committed the murder, he has to convince them that he's right. Everyone is also accusing him for his opinion, which is making him frustrated.
Another conflict is that some of the jurors were hard/hot headed and stubborn. They refused to accept the stories that juror 8 proposed even when they knew he was right. It's a conflict that could've easily been avoided if half of them weren't so fulsome. The decision in the case could've been resolved sooner if not for their stubbornness.
According to Myers and Twenge (2013), conformity is “a change in behavior or belief as the result of real or imagined peer pressure” (p. 188). In 12 Angry Men, conformity is seen in the beginning of the film. As the jury is voting on the suspect’s verdict, there is a hesitancy from a few of the jurors. In the beginning, only a couple jurors raised their hands for “guilty”. Slowly, more and more people started raising their hands as a result of peer pressure from those around them. In the end, everyone but one person was raising their hand for “guilty”, and the vote was 11 to 1 “guilty”. This scene relates to the study of Asch’s (1955) line comparison studies of group pressure. In this study, a line of people was supposed to tell
The quietness and patience juror 8 displayed caused tension amongst the other jurors creating careful and adequate (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p.453) deliberations. Juror 8 's circle of influence (Covey, 2013) directly influenced the other jurors’ circle of concern (Covey, 2013) when forcing them to question their thought process. Juror 8 chose a collaborative negotiation (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p. 63) method when deliberating with the other jurors immediately handing down guilty verdicts for the defendant. Furthermore, juror 8 used his ACES to help the other jurors cross the creek (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p.
In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.