12 Angry Men - Movie Review Example

CASE STUDY PAPER: 12 ANGRY MEN, 1957 MOVIE, WITH HENRY FONDA of due: Major Case Issues Instrumental in Deciding the Jury’s Conclusion The jury’s conclusion in the film follows an analysis of the evidence as well as the accounts of the witnesses. Upon entry into the jury room, the decisions made are based on the impression made by the accused, as well as the counsel. The view that the accused was guilty, held by eleven men in the beginning of the decision-making process is founded on the witness accounts, uniqueness of the “murder weapon”, and personal prejudices against the accused. The instrumental decision comes after the deliberation of the evidence and witness accounts. The same evidence that is used to subject the accused to a guilty image is the same that is used to raise reasonable doubt. The knife that is exhibited as being the weapon used by the plaintiff is claimed to have been peculiar and unique (26:14). The evidence collected by the police made the knife appear as if it was one of a kind and rare to obtain. In addition to the rarity of the knife, it was claimed that the assailant had time to wipe off the fingerprints from the knife, but forgot to remove it from the scene. Juror no. 8 having acquired the same knife within a night of the trial’s span, six days, questions the uniqueness of the knife (28: 56). The witness accounts given by a woman, and an old man are also questioned in the deliberation (25: 50). The old lady claims to have seen the crime take place, through the last two windows of the el train, from her bed which was directly across the apartment in which the boy and his father lived. The ability to accurately identify the boy as the assailant is debated and later on the eyeglasses marks of the lady’s nose suggest she wore glasses. There is reasonable doubt raised in the old woman’s ability to identify the culprit, considering she was trying to sleep while the events occurred. The ability of the old man to hear what the boy said as well as reach the door in fifteen seconds just to see the boy run down the stairs is discussed. Doubt of the old man’s ability to reach the door fifteen seconds after hearing the body fall, just to see the assailant run away, as well as the claim of clearly hearing the boy yell that he would kill his father amid a roaring train is established. Jury Member No. 8 a) Negotiation Approach Considering the court’s demand that all the members of the jury come to a common conclusion, the negotiation approach involves winning the opposing jury. Juror no. 8 is faced with a scenario where he has to argue out his position against the other members of the jury. According to Lewicki, Barry & Saunders (2009) juror 8 uses the integrative or win-win negotiation approach where he introduces doubt to the evidence as well as the accounts of the witnesses (p. 102). In the negotiations, juror no. 8 assumes the roles of the intuitive and local negotiators, by trying to recreate the crime as the evidence and witnesses account for the murder. He has a perspective that due to prejudice by society, and the accused did not get a fair nor comprehensive trail, and uses the platform to discuss the character of the plaintiff, in relation to the charge. Juror no. 8 argues from the court presented arguments and the evidence strength. According to the juror, the evidence that is collected in the case is mostly circumstantial. His approach follows an evaluation of the evidence and witness accounts, which may be considered as facts to the case. His approach is comprehensive and integrates the environmental circumstances in which the evidence was collected. He attacks the character of the witnesses, upon which other jurors have prejudices against “those people.” He also introduces provocation doubt, in the establishment of a motive behind the boy committing the crime. The juror believes the environment in which the boy was brought up contributed to his guilty look, and perception assumed by the biased jurors. The arguments by the juror are also integrative by drawing others to contribute to the deliberation. He examines the information and propositions by the other jury members, while raising the ignorance of the prosecution to the jury. He does not refute the evidence and information presented by the court as well as the jury members. The perspective of juror no. 8 follows the probability and possibility of there being a coincidence, via producing a similar knife (28: 56) and subjecting juror no. 4 questions about his engagements during the week. The overall approach to the negotiation approach is humanizing the plaintiff. There is a popular belief that the boy is guilty from his background, past and character, supported by the unaggressive approach by his defense counsel. b) 10 Negotiation Techniques Used Encouraging dialogue Throughout the first Act of the film, juror no. eight constantly urges his colleagues to talk about the case. The ‘preliminary vote’ reveals that a majority of 11 to 12 of the jurors feel that the accused is guilty of first degree murder (12: 06), but jury no. 8 feels it is difficult to agree with the others and send the accused to the chair. He encourages the jury to talk of the facts presented in the court, even though some of them feel it is an open and shut case, and that talking would not change their mind. He engages the jury by incorporating character and the weight of the jury’s decision. Appeal to logic and reason The juror also incorporates the use of logic to facilitate the negotiations. Examples of how the juror uses logic are the recreation of the scenarios in which the witnesses were and the reproduction of a similar looking knife. Engaging the jury via using questions that incites thought is an approach he uses. In the evaluation of character by juror no. 10, juror no. 8, asks why believe the testimony by the woman as opposed to the boy’s, considering they came from the same neighborhood, which juror no. 10 claimed was filled with born liars. Juror no. 8 actions seek to introduce normality in the life of the accused, and assume the same train of thought any other person would engage in, under normal and the case’s situation. Appeal to the reputation of the speaker’s character The juror also seeks to understand the perspective and position from which a speaker, or character is coming from. The juror no. 8 often engages in an analysis of whether the persons involved in the court case would have been wrong or have assumed the facts to the crime. Often he places himself in the shoes of the boy and expresses his feeling that the lawyer did a shoddy job examining the witnesses. He also challenges the other jurors to consider themselves in the position of others, such as challenging juror no. 6 to suppose he was the boy. He also takes up the role of the old man and presumes to re-enact the situations in which evidence is collected. Emotional and motivational appeal The first show of emotion that is exhibited by juror no. 8 is empathy towards the accused. He gives weight to the death penalty and uses the accused past life as a means of comprehending the situation and scenario that would lead to the crime. He also uses the same appeal to emotion by asking the other members of the jury to table a vote with his exception, even with knowledge of the other jurors having previously voted for the guilty verdict. His interactions with the “highly excitable” juror no. 3 is an example of how juror no. 8 uses emotion to drive his arguments and propositions, such as the use of the phrase “I’ll kill you”, and appeals to the logic of the other jurors from the remarks by juror no. 3. The verbal explosion by juror no. 3 helps minimize the impact made by the claims made by the witnesses, such as the accuracy of the old limping man “no one can be that accurate”. Active listening Part of the techniques used by juror no. 8 is actively listening to the claims made by the other jurors. Contributions by the juror are elemental to the final decision, and as such consider the arguments made by the other jurors. By listening to what the others have to say, juror no. 8 is able to answer questions posed by other jurors. An example of how he actively engages in the deliberation is the response to the hypothesis by juror no. 7 on the defense lawyer knowing the guilt of the accused. By giving answers to queries in the deliberation such as the defense counsel being court appointed, inexperienced, and not into the case, is an example to the active engagement of juror no. 8. Making eye-contact In any negotiation, making eye contact is a sign of participation. Juror no. 8 makes contact with other jurors to engage them non-verbally in the conversation. In any conversation, negation or not, making eye contact with the correspondents is important to the non-verbal communication. By looking at the communication target, juror no. 8 ensures there is concentration and active listening from the correspondents. The juror looks into the other correspondents’ eyes, reads the emotions of the other jurors, and uses the information to drive his point home. Using eye contact in the negotiations engages the jurors in the negotiation and shows interest in the proposals made by the other. The foreman’s (juror no. 1) side glances and his comment of not caring of what is done indicates a lack of interest in the negotiations, and fallout from the case. Being silent Silence is another non-verbal approach in the negotiation that is used to draw the other jurors in the conversation. Although, he begins by standing alone for the not-guilty vote, he does not get into the face of his colleagues, but gives them the opportunity to discuss and raise points to the case. By keeping quiet, it acts as a phase in which he collects information that he would use in supporting his claims, he is able to interact with the jurors concerning the case. The jurors can be evaluated personally from the silence phase, yet juror no. 8 does not impose his ideas onto the rest by crowding the discussion. Silence gives the other jurors the impression that the juror did not come into the negotiations with a hard position. His silence shows that he considers the information provided by the other members of the jury. Using evident and detail simplicity One of the most influential approaches to negotiations is the use of evidence to dispute or support a position. Juror no. 8 uses props in the negotiation to base his doubt in the guilt of the accused. In the deliberations, the 8th juror calls for evidence of the knife and the floor plan of the old man’s apartment (56: 15). He produces a similar knife to the one used as evidence to the surprise of the jury (28: 56). He uses chairs and the jury room to re-enact the limp of the old man’s to the door of his apartment in the time he stipulated in the court’s testimony. The use of simple details such as the speed at which the old man walks and the ability of the woman to see the boy commit the murder are scrutinized for simple and ignored details such as the environment and clarity of the evidence. Minimizing distractions At the beginning of the negotiations, the jury does not seem committed to the case and engages each other on personal matters and interest. There are several distractions that rise in the jury session such as Jury no.3 and 12 engaged in a game, and jury no. 12 drawing on his book (40: 38). By actively disrupting the game by the two jurors, he is involved in the minimization of distractions that contribute to the failure of the negotiation. Juror no. 8 actively gets involved in ensuring there is direction to the negotiations in the room. He has purpose and an objective in engaging the other jurors in the negotiation and having others distracted from the conversation is a distraction not only to him but also the other members of the jury. Use of contrast Contrast as a form of comparing the information from the case is a technique that is used in his negotiation. The ability of the old man to hear the boy yell about killing his father clearly with a train roaring by is an example of how the use of contrast is useful in the conclusion reached by the jury. There is an obvious shaking of the position by the jury upon the contrast of hearing the accused clearly in the noise of the train as the jury engages in small talk after the statement. Juror no. 8 further uses other people to contrast the statement claimed was from the kid by the old man, by comparing the ability of the jury members in hearing the statement by the accused in the very same environment as the accused. c) 2 Compromises Made Juror no. 8 compromises his position of not guilty by urging the other 11 jury members to take a secret ballot, with his exclusion, to determine the verdict to be taken to the judge. Juror no. 8 gambles with the jury by not getting involved in a vote that had it been taken in the beginning he would have lost. He compromises his belief that there was reasonable doubt in the case by excluding himself in the voting process. The old man’s hearing the kid saying he was going to kill his father is the other compromise he made in the case. He begins by saying that they had proven the old man could not have heard the boy, which is met by objections, from which he agrees to supposing the old man did hear the yell. He compromises his position on the old man hearing the boy yell on killing his father since he backed the claim with the common use of the phrase without having to mean the implied meaning. Unlike the first compromise, the second compromise is met with objection, and is based on the information from the case and not from the action from the jury. Juror 8 Negotiation Techniques a. Five Techniques and Their Application in My Life Encouraging dialogue In any negotiation I have been engaged, I have always enlisted the use of dialog. Negotiations are a two-way communication channel, and the bone of contention happens to be the basis of opposition. To elicit the reaction of others in the negotiation, I have to encourage dialog. Dialog plays an important role of identifying the underlying issues that are the basis of disagreements. Having the correspondents in a negotiation express themselves and their position concerning a matter helps in establishing the areas of contention and the perspective of the proposers and opposers. Appeal to logic and reason Facts and truths are information that has been proven, and undisputed evidence presented. In negotiations, there are proposals and statements that do not have irrefutable evidence, from which the non-uniformity arises. The process of decision-making encompasses individual, social, psychological, and expertise variables that can be employed in proposing arguments for or against the claims made in a negotiation. The position of any one individual follows personal experience on the matter, which will vary from one person to another considering age, culture, religion, and origin and other factors. Approaching a matter universally, and open-minded is essential in negotiations, but integrating reason is important towards making a decision. Active listening Negotiations are an exchange of principles, ideals and feelings on an issue, and giving opposing sides the opportunity to table their concerns is important to the establishment of a common decision. Listening to a correspondent actively is important to the establishment of a solution to a challenge, as it allows the involved persons to collect and gather information. Ensuring that proposers and opposers interact and exchange words are based on their participation and keenness to the issues raised by the opposing colleagues. The negotiation must be considered as a platform through which information can be exchanged. Using evidence and details Evidence and the details that go along with the process of obtaining the evidence is important to the decision arrived at by the involved parties. In any form of claim made, evidence is used as backup to ensure the stand of the hypothesis. The nature of the evidence collected determines the persuasion that comes about in the negotiation. Evidence that has a strong backing contribute to the portion of the population convinced of the claim made. Details over the collected evidence, such as the independence of the collector, method, and environment in which the information is collected, and the intended purpose of the participants determine the degree and effectiveness of persuasion. Using contrast Contrast is a powerful tool to use in any negotiation as it is used to make comparisons between situations. The situations may be similar or different, but the content of the negotiation may follow the same principles of decision-making applied for the comparison case and current case. Comparing scenarios gives the correspondents a frame of reference from which an outcome can be discussed, based on the success or failure incurred. b. Results Achieved from Above Techniques Encouraging dialogue Dialog in negotiations is highly effective in group decisions, since it facilitates an exchange of ideas. The reaction of people getting into dialog is usually positive, since there is a chance to communicate one’s thought on a particular issue. Getting the people engaged in negotiations facilitates the elimination of obstacles in progress and also contributes to the formulation of plans that effectively meet different challenges to an objective. Dialog is often a platform by which challenges can be tackled in a project before they arise as individuals contribute different ideas towards the completion of a task or responsibility. Appeal to logic and reason The reaction of correspondents to appeal to logic is particular to an individual’s character. Some people believe that their position is superior and right and often react excitably to any suggestions that say otherwise. Other people interested in a different opinion shift the burden of proof to me and ask for evidence to support a claim I have made. While others willingly accept premises made based on reason or popular opinion, others feel that adherence to the majority is the right move. Most indifference comes across cultures with different sociological principles influencing opinion. Active listening Actively listening to my correspondents is positive in any resolution of an issue. The attitude and demeanor of the correspondents is usually calm, as actively listening assures them that I am taking what they say seriously. The act also allows me to decipher the reasoning behind a particular view, and also establish the viability of the perspective. In the event that a response has to be made, I am able to keep the conflict levels to a minimum since communicated ideas are often in the proposal of the correspondent. The people engaged in the negotiations or communication also feel important since their views are considered with equal weight. Using evidence and details Evidence is an entity that is essential in the determination of a proposition’s viability. It can be used as an entity to persuade the opposers towards a perspective. Evidence shows that a proposition has importance, although it may not be necessarily right. Collection of evidence to a proposal is highly appreciated by other team players, since there is a frame of reference from which conclusions can be drawn. In addition, the collected evidence also allows the involved members the opportunity to improve proposed solutions to a challenge. Using contrast Using contrast in negations has a positive and negative effect on people. Where the contrast is used to support a proposal, there is usually appreciation as there is support for a given ideology. Where contrast is used to shoot down a proposal, there is a lot of hesitation and objection to the premise that suggests failure or no success to a decision made. The contrast provided in negotiations seems to provide the opposition with ammunition to shoot down an opposed proposal. Contrast in negotiation is only appreciated if the results positively reinforce the call of an individual or group. Juror No. 4 a. His individual negotiation strategy and approach The strategy used by juror no. 4 is one of collaborative problem-solving (Lewicki, Barry and Saunders 2009). He sticks to the facts that have been provided in the case, and he is however willing to accommodate the suggestions by the other jurors. In the negotiations, he contributes and often offers suggestions towards the decision made by the jury. His adamant position is founded on his perspective of the evidence and statements provided in the court by the witnesses as well as the accused. The approach he uses is founded on the strength of the information provided, and thus his strategy concentrates on the gaps that are in the stories provided in the court. His initial view of the case is that the accused is guilty. In the course of the negotiation, he shifts his position from being convinced that the facts of the case have a degree of doubt. He takes in the information that is provided by the other jurors and makes his decision based on the possible failure in the system. One of the positions he assumes is that the society is plagued by the slums, which is founded by evidence, and based on this position considers the accused a criminal. He has a belief in the system and upholds the evidence collected by the policeman on the site of the crime as opposed to the information from the court, which might have been rehearsed. b. Basis of his “guilty” analysis His guilty analysis is founded on evidence collected as well as social trends. His considerations of the accused being guilty is founded in the court’s process, but also tainted with the trends of society. He acknowledges that the slums are areas of potential social menaces, and there is a possibility that the accused is involved in such crimes. The juror’s analysis considers two main points in the case. The information collected by the police on the alibi of the accused is a consideration by the juror. He considers the inability of the accused to remember the movies he saw as proof that he was giving a poor alibi. This is further supported by the stating the facts to the case chronologically (26: 34) from the argument of the kid with the father to the loss of the knife. He also accounts for the difference in the record of events by the accused and the police. He dismisses the claim of the boy going to the movies from there being no evidence that supports the alibi. The accounts by the witnesses are the other contributors to the guilty analysis by the juror. The storekeeper’s comment of the knife being unusual, the old man’s testimony of seeing the boy run from the scene, and the woman’s account of witnessing the murder consolidate his view on the boy being guilty. Since the boy had a poor memory of the movies as claims as his alibi, the juror believes that he did not partake in the films as he suggests. The juror’s inability to remember his week events, while not under pressure, did not seem to bother him as he believed that despite the challenges, the accused should have recalled the films. c. Negotiation technique used by juror no. 8 to change juror no. 4’s mind Juror no. 8 uses collaborative problem-solving and give-an-take sharing to sway the vote of juror no. 4. The 4th juror is swayed by the presentation of evidence and counter-arguments that introduce doubt to the claims of guilt. The 8th juror strategically introduces doubt to the evidence presented to the jury and wins over the 4th juror, together with the rest. The introduction of the second knife similar to that of the case’s evidence disapproves the uniqueness to the knife and reduces the argument to probabilities. Noise from the el tracks challenges the ability of the old man to hear what the kid said to the father. The health condition of the old man challenges the claim that he was able to make it to his door in fifteen seconds and see the accused run away. Finally, the use of spectacles by the woman was the final challenge to the evidence. Considering the woman wore glasses, and the possibility of her having them on while in bed facilitated the doubt argument. The interrogation by the 8th juror on his activities in the week was also a point in which doubt was introduced. The 4th juror claimed that the boy would have been able to recall the name of the films and their stars had he been to the films. His engagement with the 8th juror sought to prove that the boy might have forgotten the information from the circumstances in which he was interrogated. He asks if it would have been possible for the boy to forget the films and their stars while being interrogated in the same apartment where the body of his father lay, in the bedroom, as well as after having been mishandled by being thrown down the staircase. Juror no. 4’s inability to answer the questions on the week while not under any pressure is used as a comparison to what the kid experienced, and if the juror could forget the films and stars why not the boy while under stress. His personal experience in wearing spectacles contributed to doubt that the woman may have not seen the face of the assailant from sixty feet away while it was dark. It is by the consideration of the probability that a woman who was in the midst of sleeping efforts, and wears eyeglasses had the ability to recognize the face of assailant that the probability seems to topple the evidence collected by the court and police systems. The challenges to the story provided by the police compared to that of the accused are discussed with consideration of the gaps in the evidence collected. There is reasonable proof that the eye witnesses’ accounts were challenged by the possibilities raised by the jury members. Jury no. 9 a. Negotiation Techniques and Approach Used by Juror No. 9 with Juror No. 4 on His Glasses and Their Use Juror no. 9 uses collaborative problem solving and sharing as an approach and strategy on juror no. 4, in the issue of glasses. He inquires why juror no. 4 kept rubbing his nose as well as whether the marks on his nose could have been made by anything else other than eyeglasses (1: 23: 55). Juror no. 9 then proceeds to contribute that he saw similar marks on the woman, which is seconded by the other jurors. Collaboratively, he then asks if juror no. 4 made it a practice to sleep with his eyeglasses, to which juror no. 4 replies that, no one sleeps with his or her glasses on. This introduced doubt and questioned the sight of the woman, hence the conviction that the accused was not guilty based on reasonable doubt. References Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2007). Negotiation: readings, exercises, cases. Boston, Mass. [u.a.], McGraw-Hill. Sidney Lumet. (1957). Twelve angry men (1957) [Motion picture]. Retrieved 11, November, 2014. Read More