This case study is over the film 12 Angry Men, revolving around the verdict of a murder case and the 12 jurors charged with making the decision. The jury is comprised of middle aged men or older from various occupations, cultures, and backgrounds. One particular juror is the only member of the jury willing to avoid a snap decision that is pressured by the remaining jurors to get out early. He leads the discussion amongst the other jurors playing devil’s advocate to their guilty verdicts. As the events progress each point brought up in the court hearing is analyzed deeper from multiple angles causing the jurors to accept the challenge of convicting or acquitting the young man on trial with a fair and just verdict. The twelve jurors are the
…show more content…
He explain that the verdict must be unanimous. The judge’s words set the stage for the entire case and holds a major weight as the juror’s move to preliminary vote to see where they all stand. The Foreman explains that a vote of 12 in either way would complete their duties and end the trial. The initial vote shows an 11-1 result. Juror 8 is the only juror to oppose his peers. Juror 10 states, “Boy oh boy! There is always one.” The rest of the jury tries to intimidate and convince Juror 8 that there is no doubt the boy on trial is guilty. They are solely focused on coming to a conclusion and finishing their duties as soon as possible. On multiple occasions of the preliminary discussions jurors states things such as “What do you think you are going to accomplish you won’t change anybody’s mind (Fonda & Lumet, 1957).” Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson (2011.) define this as groupthink or the desire for conformity as a result of dysfunctional decision making, furthermore members attempt to reach a consensus without critical analysis of each point. Peer pressure also plays a role in the initial vote. The jurors are pressured by one another to not be the person who keeps the rest of them locked in this room wasting the others’ time. The jurors are opposed to even talking about the case. Juror 8 prods them to just talk about the case, that they can’t all in good conscience send a boy away without at …show more content…
Even the temperamental Juror 3 acknowledges Juror 8 as the leader of the group on several occasions. By taking this lead role Juror 8 is able to lead the jury in an out of topics and issues. He approaches the situations with an unbiased opinion and works to remain neutrality until the rest of the jury begins to reform their opinions. He doesn’t allow his prejudice or stereotyping of the boy on trial to cloud his judgment. He also displays effective communication examples to the group. He listens to each jury member’s points respectfully and presents his in a calm demeanor. Juror 8 helps to navigate through the conflicts that arise as he seems himself needed. The other jurors eventually work to combat some of the lesser conflicts on their own. Juror 1, who was supposed to be the facilitator, should take pointers from the acts presented by Juror 8. It takes a strong leader and an even better facilitator to help navigate through the communication and conflict presented in this case. It is a credit to Juror 8s character that he does such a commendable
He explain that the verdict must be unanimous. The judge’s words set the stage for the entire case and holds a major weight as the juror’s move to preliminary vote to see where they all stand. The Foreman explains that a vote of 12 in either way would complete their duties and end the trial. The initial vote shows an 11-1 result. Juror 8 is the only juror to oppose his peers. Juror 10 states, “Boy oh boy! There is always one.” The rest of the jury tries to intimidate and convince Juror 8 that there is no doubt the boy on trial is guilty. They are solely focused on coming to a conclusion and finishing their duties as soon as possible. On multiple occasions of the preliminary discussions jurors states things such as “What do you think you are going to accomplish you won’t change anybody’s mind (Fonda & Lumet, 1957).” Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson (2011.) define this as groupthink or the desire for conformity as a result of dysfunctional decision making, furthermore members attempt to reach a consensus without critical analysis of each point. Peer pressure also plays a role in the initial vote. The jurors are pressured by one another to not be the person who keeps the rest of them locked in this room wasting the others’ time. The jurors are opposed to even talking about the case. Juror 8 prods them to just talk about the case, that they can’t all in good conscience send a boy away without at …show more content…
Even the temperamental Juror 3 acknowledges Juror 8 as the leader of the group on several occasions. By taking this lead role Juror 8 is able to lead the jury in an out of topics and issues. He approaches the situations with an unbiased opinion and works to remain neutrality until the rest of the jury begins to reform their opinions. He doesn’t allow his prejudice or stereotyping of the boy on trial to cloud his judgment. He also displays effective communication examples to the group. He listens to each jury member’s points respectfully and presents his in a calm demeanor. Juror 8 helps to navigate through the conflicts that arise as he seems himself needed. The other jurors eventually work to combat some of the lesser conflicts on their own. Juror 1, who was supposed to be the facilitator, should take pointers from the acts presented by Juror 8. It takes a strong leader and an even better facilitator to help navigate through the communication and conflict presented in this case. It is a credit to Juror 8s character that he does such a commendable