Final Recommendation – Justify and Strategies
My final recommendation for resolution is for Juror 3 to be objective regarding the case without his deep and hurt feelings that he has for his son. I would hope he would be less stubborn and not have his clouded judgement in making a decision. It was not until another juror said, “He’s not your boy; he’s somebody else. Let him live,” did he finally, change his predetermined position and said, “All right, not guilty.” Juror 3 needed to understand himself prior to understanding others. He had an urge to blame, meanwhile he could not get past his own feelings of anger, hurt and shame. Instead by realizing his hurt feelings and blocked emotions, he could become a joyous and more compassionate individual. It is essential that Juror 3 use facts not feelings during his judgement of the case presented.
The facts of this case needed to be considered systemically. This means just one fact could not be analyzed. The example that Pearce used was about the forest. He said, “You won’t understand much about the forest if you look at all the trees in the forest, one at a time (Pearce, 2007). This means one can get a better understanding of the case by looking at all the evidence …show more content…
Once an individual realizes and acknowledges where their feelings come from, they can make decisions that are fair and just. Juror 3 was intimidating and arrogant due to his insecurity. By letting the other jurors know more about himself they can become more sympathetic to his view point and better explain to him that he needed to use the facts and not his feelings. It is important that he does not vent, but instead describe his emotions without becoming emotional (Stone, 1999). In “12 Angry Men” it is imperative that each juror have their feelings and opinions acknowledged. Constructive communication is the key element in having successful
My final recommendation for resolution is for Juror 3 to be objective regarding the case without his deep and hurt feelings that he has for his son. I would hope he would be less stubborn and not have his clouded judgement in making a decision. It was not until another juror said, “He’s not your boy; he’s somebody else. Let him live,” did he finally, change his predetermined position and said, “All right, not guilty.” Juror 3 needed to understand himself prior to understanding others. He had an urge to blame, meanwhile he could not get past his own feelings of anger, hurt and shame. Instead by realizing his hurt feelings and blocked emotions, he could become a joyous and more compassionate individual. It is essential that Juror 3 use facts not feelings during his judgement of the case presented.
The facts of this case needed to be considered systemically. This means just one fact could not be analyzed. The example that Pearce used was about the forest. He said, “You won’t understand much about the forest if you look at all the trees in the forest, one at a time (Pearce, 2007). This means one can get a better understanding of the case by looking at all the evidence …show more content…
Once an individual realizes and acknowledges where their feelings come from, they can make decisions that are fair and just. Juror 3 was intimidating and arrogant due to his insecurity. By letting the other jurors know more about himself they can become more sympathetic to his view point and better explain to him that he needed to use the facts and not his feelings. It is important that he does not vent, but instead describe his emotions without becoming emotional (Stone, 1999). In “12 Angry Men” it is imperative that each juror have their feelings and opinions acknowledged. Constructive communication is the key element in having successful