Proc 5840 Negotiations
November 26 2014
Major Issues
The major issue in this case was rather or not the young man was guilty of killing his father. According to the majority of the jurors there was no doubt in their minds the prosecutor had presented a good case and the boy should be found guilty. However Juror number eight began to question some of the evidence that was presented at the trial. From the onset juror number eight stated that he wasn't sure if the boy was guilty or innocent and would like to talk to the other members to discuss the facts.
Several times throughout the movie it was mentioned that the jury might be hung. There were several votes with one or two members deflecting to the not guilty side on every vote....show more content... His premise was that this young man's life was in their hands and they should not reach a decision without having a conversation first. He made several references to how bad of a job the boy's lawyer did in refuting the evidence that was presented at the trial. He stated several times when asked if he thought the boy was not guilty that he wasn't sure and they should talk about it. By being persistent and not changing his position on several votes he was able to get other members to see that there were several holes in the testimony that was presented. At one point during deliberations he was even able to have each member explain the rationale behind their vote. Juror number 8 effectively employed the collaborative negotiation style by working toward a mutually acceptable agreement that preserves or strengthens the relationship. He let other members vent their positions without making the deliberations become competitive. He spoke to each of his co–jurors with respect and kept calm and collective throughout. He was also able to use multiple communication styles that made it easier to talk to others and convey his doubt about the evidence. I felt as if even though the relationship concerns were low due to the fact that he didn't know the other jurors he did a good job of maintaining his cool. Knowing that Juror number eight has a background as an architect it was no surprising that his attention to detail to the evidence may have
Reaction
The following play was written for television in 1957. The play was written by Reginald Rose and depicts a story about twelve jurors trying to determine if a young boy is found guilty of killing his father. The play starts out in the courtroom where the judge is giving instructions to the jurors on the murder case. It is stated that if the young man is found guilty, he will be charged with a mandatory sentence of the death penalty. It is now up to the twelve men to determine if this young man should be sentenced to death. The twelve men then file into the jury room and sit in exact order as given in court. They proceed to take a vote by stating whether they think the individual is guilty of committing murder. Starting...show more content...
Majority influence occurs when individual decisions within a group are influenced by others in the group. (Keyton, 2006) With members first group decision starting out with them openly going around the table stating the defendant was guilty could have initially changed the votes of some members to agree with the majority. Under majority influence, the decision making process showed symptoms of groupthink. Groupthink occurred within this particular group of men as the majority of the jurors overestimated their power and invulnerability. (Keyton, 2006) This therefore caused all eleven jurors who believed the defendant was guilty to not question any evidence or circumstances presented in the case. This was apparent throughout the film as the majority of the jurors were narrow minded coming into the jury room. This is found to be true as the jurors failed to critically examine and analyze the evidence stated in the case. All jurors except for juror # 8 took the evidence at face value and did not want to accept any other circumstances that could have happened that night the boy 's father was killed. Groupthink effected the groups cohesiveness as it was moderately high causing the group to not challenge any evidence. (Keyton, 2006) Group cohesion is an important factor of a group, which shows members have a desire to remain in a group. (Keyton, 2006) Presented in the play the initial reaction of the twelve men was through more of an individual
Get more content
Norms:
В· Respect elders (e.g., the laborer is the self–appointed enforcer of good manners)
В· The jurors had come to value a case based on facts, not prejudice or stereotypes. Those who upheld this value (Juror 8 and the Juror 4) were respected and became leaders that were looked to for guidance. The jurors that maintained arguments based on stereotypes alienated themselves from the others.
В· The decision has to be unanimous (hung jury was something nobody liked)
В· No racial prejudices were tolerated (everybody turned their backs to juror 10 when he started saying that "he knew people of these kind very well")
Processes: The...show more content...
The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8 triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors. The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by the process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men end up reconciled, and justice is done.
Roles:
Role Explanation Portrayed by Reasons
Task Oriented Roles initiator–contributor suggests new ideas to solve group problem or new ways for the group to organize the task Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) Suggested that the jury deliberate for at least and hour information giver/seeker deals with information and facts about the group's task Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) В· Produced an identical knifeВ· Asked for the floor plan opinion seeker/giver deals with the group's values regarding its tasks Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) Presented an in–depth analysis of the facts of the case rather than a superficial viewpoint
Reginald Rose's play '12 Angry Men' entirely takes place in a small New York City jury room where 12 male jurors have convened to decide the verdict in a homicide case. The verdict of this case will decide if a young boy will be charged with murdering his father, with a switchblade knife, on the first degree. The film shows us nothing of the trial itself except for the judge 's perfunctory, almost bored, charge to thejury where he reminds them that they must base their unanimous decision of "guilty" or "not guilty" on whether or not there is "reasonable doubt" in their minds as to the guilt of the accused. His tone of voice indicates the verdict is a foregone conclusion. We hear neither prosecutor nor defense attorney, and learn of the...show more content...
After all, they 're about to send an eighteen year–old kid to the electric chair, and Juror #8 doesn 't want to do that without having a conversation first. He brings up certain details of the case that have been bothering him, but the other jurors want him to stop stalling so they can get on with the Guilty verdict. Among the main sources of evidence that the jurors have found compelling include the testimony of two key witnesses. The first was the testimony of the tenant living below the apartment where the defendant's father had been killed, during which he stated that he heard the defendant say that he would kill the father and that he saw him soon afterwards fleeing the scene of the crime. A juror counters the evidence by stating that the boy claimed he had been at the movies while his father was murdered, but couldn't remember the name of the movies or who was in them. The second key witness was a woman, who was living across the street, testified that she saw the boy kill his father through the windows of a passing elevated train. Aside from the considerations mentioned, the jurors also took it to be significant that the defendant had, that night, had an argument with his father, which resulted in the boy's father hitting him twice, and that the boy has an extensive list of prior offenses, including trying to slash another teenager with a knife. Finally, the murder weapon recovered from the scene of Get more content
The movie 12 Angry Men takes place in a room of 12 jurors as they discuss the guilt of a boy charged with the murder of his father. The facts of the case have been laid out, and each juror already has decided how they feel. Initially the vote was 11–1 guilty. The one vote for not guilty came from Juror Number Eight, Mr. Davis, played by Henry Fonda. Mr. Davis voted not guilty because he had reasonable doubt about evidence presented by the prosecution. As Mr. Davis explains his reasoning behind his reasonable doubt, the core values of himself and other jurors are displayed. As the movie continues, the vote slowly turns from 11–1 guilty to 12–0 not guilty. Mr. Davis brings up point after point that force his fellow jurors to analyze themselves and in the end, change the way they vote. Ultimately, the 1957 film 12 Angry Men forces the audience to look inward after watching the juror's words, manners, and priorities change throughout the jury session.
Mr. Davis is the character in this film the audience can learn the most from. He's the only jury member to originally vote not guilty, and when the eleven other members find out a litter of resentful comments are hurled his way. The men complain that Davis is wasting their time, and that he is trying to let a guilty man go free. Mr. Davis acknowledges all the angry jabs without batting an eye, and calmly explains his reasoning. His arguments methodically poke holes in the pile of faulty evidence presented by the prosecution. He uses reasoning and open–mindedness to view the case while the other men allow prejudices and outside influences to alter their ideas. An article from the New York Times discussing the increasingly notable problem of closed minded jurors said this; "Such jurors tend to make up their minds far earlier than others, and by the time they enter the jury room for deliberation they cannot be budged." Mr. Davis was dealing with multiple closed–minded jurors yet he managed to succeed. He showed the audience courage enough to stand and face a room full of men who disagreed with him, which is something most can't do. Mr. Davis teaches the audience a thing or two about manners throughout the film. Most of the men when trying to get Get
"12 Angry Men"
The play "12 Angry Men" by Reginald Rose reveals human nature, personal experiences, and the men's effect on the justice system. The play brings out how as humans we jump to conclusions without thinking things through, we don't like to take the time and look over things, and we use our own experiences and use them to help influence our thinking. In the play, everyone but juror number eight jumps to conclusions about the young man on trial. Number eight helps guide most of the other jurors to look over the case and discover what really happened through him being unsure and not jumping to conclusions. Still, some of the others stay stuck in what they think happened. The jurors use their own past experiences to shape what they...show more content...
Juror number five grew up in slums. He was younger compared to all the other jurors, yet had more under his belt than others. He had different life experiences than most of the men. At first, he believed that the young man, but after eight had pointed a few things out he was one of the first to change his mind. "Eight. Have you ever seen a knife fight. five. Yes, I have. . . in my backyard. On my stoop." (12 Angry Men). Juror five has seen certain things in own life, such as knife fights. This helped him become more helpful while the group of men deliberated on what went down during the crime. His own personal experience helped them proved details in the crime to be not reliable. This affected the justice system by giving the young man who came from the same pace as five a better chance at a new start. Juror Five wasn't the only juror who used his life experience and human nature to help the young man and justice. Juror number eight was a well thought out man. He was independent, not afraid to be different, and liked to look through things very carefully unlike other jurors. In the beginning of the play number eight stands alone. He isn't sure if the young man is guilty or not. Instead of just jumping to conclusions and voting guilty he takes his time and votes not guilty unlike everyone else. "Five. You're all alone. Nine. It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone" (12 Angry Men) This quote is from when number eight went from being alone to number three Get
Twelve Angry Men highlights the importance of seeing things from more than one perspective. Discuss.
Reginald Rose's play Twelve Angry Men emphasises the importance of seeing things from more than one perspective. Set in a New York jury room in 1957, Rose highlights how important it is that the jury discuss all of the evidence from the case in detail and from multiple angles. Representative of this notion is the 8th Juror who is willing to acknowledge alternative views or interpretations. From the outset of the play he goes against the crowd voting "not guilty". He then considers all of the details of the evidence including the old man's testimony and the boy's inability to remember the movie he saw. In contrast to this character, are...show more content...
Rose therefore reinforces the idea that by giving the boy a chance and looking at the case from different perspectives this gives the defendant a better chance in gaining an impartial hearing which is of prime importance. The 8th Juror sees the situation from the defendants perspective and presented by witnesses testimonies also looks at the evidence and the facts presented by the witness testimonies of the case from many perspectives.
The 8th Juror actively questions what constitutes a 'fact' when examining the evidence. He does this by looking at each aspect of the evidence provided and considering alternative options to the explanations given in court. When the defendant is unable to remember what movie he had seen the 8th Juror suggests that the may not have been able to remember minor details after such "an upsetting experience... as being struck in the face by [his] father". He also questions the old man's testimony. While many of the jurors believe the old man's testimony is "unshakeable" Rose challenges the idea there is a lot of "circumstantial evidence" yet no concrete facts. Therefore he encourages the jurors to look from different perspectives at the witness testimonies, not just accept what they hear as being true. Many of the eyewitnesses may have been fallible and therefore should be subject to the same questioning as the defendant in