Deliberation

that Davis should receive the death penalty. There were twelve jury members, and it was made up of seven men and five women. Seven people were black, and five people were white. The real question is, were there biases in the decision making of Troy Anthony Davis? Before the case itself, Troy Davis ' face was on wanted posters, Savannah newspapers, and television for being wanted for the murder of Mark MacPhail. In an earlier chapter from the text, studies showed that when people are exposed to news coverage of a crime, people are more likely to presume the defendant is guilty (Kovera, 2002; Otto, Penrod, & Dexter, 1994). Due to this fact, it would be safe to say that this altered the jury 's decision-making in the trial. Although the deliberations are not available, it is safe to say the pretrial publicity had a huge role in his conviction because it…

This paper looks into deliberation,…

In his play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose brings us back in time to 1957, to a jury room of a New York Court of Law where one man, Juror #8, confronts the rest of the jury to look at a homicide case without prejudice, and ultimately convinces Juror #2, a very soft-spoken man who at first had little say in the deliberation. Throughout the play, several jurors give convincing arguments that make one think about whether the boy is “guilty” or “not guilty.” Ultimately, one is convinced by ethos,…

In the play, 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, the characters of this story appear to be nothing more than average people picked to stand and listen to a case of a boy accused of homicide. As the characters are supposed to leave personal issues at the door of the case, some appear to use them against the boy. Using these imperfect jurors, people can see how that when insecurities, flaws, and the law form together, the justice system can be found. The justice system is neither perfect nor is it…

The play "12 Angry Men" by Reginald Rose is an all-time American classic. The play is about a jury set to decide the fate of a teenager who allegedly stabbed his father to death. These 12 men have this young man's life in their hands and things get heated quickly when not everyone agrees that the boy is guilty. The predominant theme of the play is prejudice, defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge.'"…

Twelve Angry Man · “Life is in their hands，Death is on their minds。”These worlds from Twelve Angry Man. This text talked about there have twelve members of the jury are discussed in a rest room to decide whether a murder case was established. The murder defendant is a 18 year old child, his father is dead. Twelve members of a jury must discuss a consensus: the children's murder of a crime. If established, the child will be sent to the chair the execution of the death penalty. If not…

enough and there was no more need for deliberation even though there was clearly much room for reasonable doubt. Negative Social Interdependence Theory began to come into play when the other jurors who were satisfied with making a final decision based on group-think started to have open disagreement with Davis. Many of the jurors who originally opposed Davis did so while using distributive negotiation. Many of these jurors had busy lives that required for them to devote much time to. One juror…

court. Additionally, Juror 8 demonstrates much resilience, another one of the key characteristics of a good leader, as he does not back down from his belief in the defendant’s innocence, despite being the only person unsure of the boy’s guilt. This determination is admirable, as Juror 8 faces much pressure to change his position and declare the boy guilty. However, he does not succumb to the demands of the other jurors, and not only maintains his position, but convinces others of its validity. …

Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, in the very first vote that the jurors take, it is eleven to one. All of the jurors vote guilty except for Juror Eight. Juror Eight votes not guilty. After some discussion on the vote, Juror seven makes the following statement that sparks this conversation between Jurors Eight and Three: SEVEN. I think the guy’s guilty. You couldn’t change my mind if you talked for a hundred years. EIGHT. I don’t want to change your mind. THREE. Just what are you…

opposing view that presents itself. Conflict is also brought on through irrational analysis, intimidation, and disrespect for one another and the opinions of others. Juror 8 works to put a rational spin on every piece of the evidence. He drives home each point with opposing views, mostly using proof and tactful thought to shift the opinions of his fellow jurors. As these conflicting ideas become more clear to the jurors their rationality and ability to deal with the fact that the evidence…