Minority Matters: 12 Angry Men

The article, Minority Matters: 12 Angry Men as a Case Study of a Successful Negotiation, by Eirini Flouri and Yiannis Fitsakis, meticulously analyses multiple strategies and angles taken by juror 8 in the film 12 Angry Men. The article examines what factors contributed to juror 8’s success and the ever changing tactics juror 8 uses to gain supporters for his cause. The negotiation is held to decide the fate of an eighteen year old minority, which allegedly murdered his father. The elements surrounding the negotiation are 12 jurors in a hot conference room, no relationships formed prior to negotiation and none expected or necessarily desired as an outcome. The jurors answer only to themselves and to the law, grounded in the expectation by …show more content…
All the other jurors were united for different reasons in the belief that the defendant was guilty. Juror 8 forces the group to carefully examine all the evidence to be sure there isn’t any reasonable doubt, he believes the defendant deserves, at the very least a jury that took the time necessary to carry out justice. The first tactic juror 8 uses is silence, watching the other jurors to get a glimpse of their thought processes and to figure out their belief system that provides the foundation to their argument against innocence. Juror 8 forms alliances whenever possible, an example of this is when he was the only one to take a cough drop from juror 2. Through investigating the facts and brainstorming possible alternatives to arguments against the possibility of innocence juror 8 slowly wins over the other jurors. Juror 8 uses tactics to uncover personal bias against the defendant and display true motives for a guilty vote. He sets up juror 3 into a fit of rage discrediting him and getting juror 3 to say “I’ll kill you.” Which was one of the incriminating statements overheard by a witness to the case, creating doubt in the argument that speaking the words, “I’ll kill you” actually equates to someone becoming a