Register to read the introduction…
A few examples would be with juror 7- voted guilty because he had a baseball game to get to, and after a long while of arguing juror 8 decided that if no one else votes not guilty then he would vote guilty and that would be the concluding verdict.
The first alliance is at the beginning after everyone but juror 8 voted guilty. Juror 9 steps in and gives him a chance to explain why he doesn't find the boy guilty. This juror didn't get offended or ignorant to what juror 8 had to say. As the day goes by, jurors 3,7 and 10 make an alliance that would eventually change as more and more thoughts are said.
During their whole dispute, they come up with different ways to settle arguments, including going around the table and giving each person a chance to explain why they voted guilty or innocent and using evidence to prove one's point. Juror 8 always had evidence to back up his reasons, which convinced the others that maybe the boy is innocent.
The ultimate resolution comes after everyone gives their input and puts all of the pieces together. They gain a different perspective which changes their thoughts on everything. After a long day, they …show more content…
At the beginning he took charge in organizing and starting the discussion, and kept stuff in control and running. He didn't shout or disrupt, instead he waited his turn to speak and did so in a civil manner. Another instance of a leader was juror 8. Even when everyone was against his decision and was yelling at him, he didn't give in as he was confident in his reasons why the boy was not guilty. He did not switch sides during the whole debate and could prove his point through numerous examples and scenarios. Juror 3 is another example of a leader because he had strong beliefs in why he thought that the boy was guilty and stayed with his decision up until the
The first alliance is at the beginning after everyone but juror 8 voted guilty. Juror 9 steps in and gives him a chance to explain why he doesn't find the boy guilty. This juror didn't get offended or ignorant to what juror 8 had to say. As the day goes by, jurors 3,7 and 10 make an alliance that would eventually change as more and more thoughts are said.
During their whole dispute, they come up with different ways to settle arguments, including going around the table and giving each person a chance to explain why they voted guilty or innocent and using evidence to prove one's point. Juror 8 always had evidence to back up his reasons, which convinced the others that maybe the boy is innocent.
The ultimate resolution comes after everyone gives their input and puts all of the pieces together. They gain a different perspective which changes their thoughts on everything. After a long day, they …show more content…
At the beginning he took charge in organizing and starting the discussion, and kept stuff in control and running. He didn't shout or disrupt, instead he waited his turn to speak and did so in a civil manner. Another instance of a leader was juror 8. Even when everyone was against his decision and was yelling at him, he didn't give in as he was confident in his reasons why the boy was not guilty. He did not switch sides during the whole debate and could prove his point through numerous examples and scenarios. Juror 3 is another example of a leader because he had strong beliefs in why he thought that the boy was guilty and stayed with his decision up until the