The reason for these reactions is due to the fact that jurors are all influenced by different decision making abilities. These abilities can be shaped by varying emotional reactions to case information, jurors intelligence, their abilities to retain certain information, and of course their own personal and cultural views. As a result, jurors establish different perceptions and opinions despite all the jurors being given the same information. The procedure of applying a juror’s perception of certain views on life and how those views apply to the facts and information being presented to them in the case are the main forces behind each juror’s individual conclusions on the case. Jurors seem to rarely alter their opinions on how they feel about a certain case, but they may change their minds on how things should have been presented to them. This can be observed in the participation and comments of the jurors in this certain case. All jurors in this particular case participated and took an active role, yet J1, J4, J7, J8, J12 were the most vocal. J1, J4, J7, and J8 had very strong personalities and naturally appeared to want to be active in the deliberations. J2 appeared to have a strong personality as well, but soon made their mind up about the situation. J1 and J7 as will be discussed later on appear to be the most similar and often support and defend each other throughout the jury deliberation. J12 was active merely because she had to out of self-defense. J12 was the only juror that did not agree with the majority’s conclusions about Ducic and constantly had to defend herself and provide rebuttals with little support from the other jurors. Nevertheless, it appears jurors with strong opinions on the case participate more in the ... ... middle of paper ... ...r a loving family member. J12 mentions a few times that Ducic seems to be acting like a kid, or someone who is capable of loving his mother. This creates conflict with some of the other jurors whom see Ducic more as a murderer with no soul rather than a loving son. By categorizing Ducic as a kid simply wanting his mother’s love shows that J12 is attempting to connect the nature and characteristics of kids to that of Ducic. Kids do not always think everything through and get into issues as a result of their carelessness and lack of competency. J12’s categorization of Ducic as an adolescent is an attempt to support her decision on a punishment that does not involve death. Works Cited Aggravated murder: death penalty sentencing phase deliberations state of Ohio v. mark Ducic Bicks, M. (Director). (2004). In the jury room: The State of Ohio vs Mark Ducic: ABC News.
It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.” Juror 8 is the only one from the twelve men who votes ‘not guilty’ in the beginning, and even he admits that it “[may be] for no reason”; however, he quite rightly thinks that this boy, this defendant in a huge system that is currently running because of people like these jurors, deserves more contemplation on his case, more recognition than a ‘yeah, he’s guilty.’ Juror 8 makes it his job to be the boy’s sole advocate in a room full of twelve men, although he knows that both the odds and his peers in the room are against him. He shows compassion [only the first from a long line of heroic qualities that Juror 8 embodies] for a stranger, one that definitely could have just murdered his father, and gives this boy a second chance at a trial with Juror 8 himself as the lawyer, and his prejudiced peers as the judges. Consequently, he stands up against men who constantly threaten him with physical violence and slurs, and most people cannot do that. In today’s society, we shun those who don’t go with the flow; millions of articles and magazines published every day feed on the reader’s insecurity of not being ‘mainstream’. If challenging this belief that ‘normal’ is good is difficult today, where we constantly have revolutionary movements like ‘Occupy Wall Street’ or ‘LGBTQ+ Pride’, it must have been nearly impossible in the era of conservativeness, prejudice, and racism that was the norm in the mid-twentieth century. This bravery is one of the most prominent aspects of heroism, and Juror 8 is truly one of the most courageous jurors in that facet. Additionally, Juror 8 believes that prejudice should not stand in the way of justice. One of the ways that Juror 8 removes credibility from the evidence that Juror 3 , or 10, or 4 constantly bring up is by revealing their prejudice. He tells Juror 3
Jurors’ decisions are affected by emotions and other unspoken thoughts/feelings. Previous research has shown that people make decisions on “quick gut feelings.” The goal of this study is to see if a disgusting stimulus will have an influence on juror decision-making. The research was concerned with the decision-making question of whether or not jurors’ disgust and gut-feeling judgment towards the defendant are key elements in legal settings. This decision will be due to a “quick gut feeling” of disgust either attributed or not attributed to the criminal (Schnall, Haidt, Clore & Jordan, 2008).
Juror eight opened the minds of the others by telling them how the boy”had been kicked around his whole, life. You know living in a slum. His mother dead since he was nine. That’s not very good head start. He’s a tough, angry kid. You know why kids get that way? Because we knock them over their head once a day, every day. I think maybe we owe him a few words.” juror eight goes on to explain how this boy had a hard life and if he did commit this crime he might have done it with reason. Now a hard life did not constitute the boy to kill his father but it may have given him motive to kill his father. We know that he was charged with first degree murder. Simply because he had bought his pocket knife days before the murder. “But as we the jury have talked about it many people own the kind of pocket knife yesterday. Why yes one of our very own jurors happens to own the same knife.” Juror eight is able to prove to everyone that we should not to so quick to judge. As all the facts were placed on the table it showed how by further looking into and embracing new ideas of what could have happen the opend the case to have a birds eye view. To be able to see more than just a poor boy who killed his fathr for
Negotiation Techniques: Each juror had their own techniques on discussing the situation of the murder, whether it was using the facts, the witness, motives, and etc. Some of them were very loud and powerful with how they would discuss the murder, other were just calm and polite with how they handled the discussion or how they handl...
In the drama “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, twelve men are called before the court to be apart of a jury. They must analyze a case in which a nine-teen year old is being convicted for the murder of his father. The twelve U.S. citizens must analyze the case and give a convincing verdict. Although all jurors played a significant role in the drama, jurors three and eight played an even more influential role than the rest of the jurors.
There are many issues with the jurors in a case having a preconceived opinion of a certain group of people or about the suspect or the crime itself. The people whose lives are at stake will, as a result, not receive a fair hearing. This is a serious obstacle in issuing the proper punishments or deciding whether a suspect is innocent or guilty in a case. In the most serious cases, someone could be unrightfully pegged as guilty or an extremely dangerous criminal could be released without any consequence, and the ability to repeat the exact same crime. The short play, 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, was set in the late summer of 1954 and focuses on twelve jurors arguing whether a boy murdered his own father. At the start, the vote is 11-1, the
People's bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that the jurors' personal prejudices come out and we the readers/viewers are able to see how this has influenced and shaped what they think.
After they have sat down, they begin to discuss the case, but it is done very briefly. They then hold an open vote by raising their hands, which results to a 11-1; eleven believe that the suspect is guilty, one man does not. The other men criticize the man who voted not guilty (juror #8). (7) The majority of the men voted guilty, simply to leave. Juror #7 even tells the group that he wants the thing over with so he can go to the ballgame he had tickets for. Juror #8 is irritated with the group because they weren’t treating the case with any care. He clarifies that he didn’t choose ‘not guilty’ because he believed it but because he wanted to look deeper into the case, and make sure that the verdict is correct so they don’t send an innocent man to prison. (3) Juror #8 is very patient with the group, even though most of the group was very disrespectful towards him. (6) Actually, most of the jurors were intimidating each other
Plot: “Twelve Angry Men” is an interesting and exciting jury-room confrontation in which an "open and shut case" becomes strenuous as twelve strangers scuffle for answers. The trial involves a nineteen-year-old boy, who is suspect of killing his father in a late-night altercation with an extraordinary knife. His fate now lies in the hands of 12 jurors, each with his own determination to solve the case and reveal the truth. As the session takes its course, evidence becomes scrutinised, tempers rise, and the jury room erupts in a shouting brawl because one such juror finds reasonable doubts in the two testimonies that were deemed credible enough to convict. In his fight for an acquittal, the singled out juror found that the testimonial evidence was not only unreliable, but the timely fashion in which both the man and the woman alleged to have seen and heard the defendant were by far insufficient. Upon reaction to his vote, the dubious jurors immediately began questioning the man, not understanding how he could possibly think that way. Nevertheless, the adamant juror held his ground and the votes were: 11 guilty, and 1 not guilty, but the decision had to be unanimous.
Twelve Angry Men is a film that exemplafies many aspects of social psychology. In it, twelve jurors are tasked with deciding the fate of a boy accused of murder. The initial vote is eleven to one in facor of guilty. Gradually, through much intense discussion, all the jurors are swayed to vote not-guilty. The film highlights some of the key theories in social psychology, including confomityprejudice, and group polarization.
Juror misconduct is an issue that began a long time ago and it is caused mainly by the fact that the jurors that participate in these cases are not familiar with the information provided and this excludes the information off of present digital media as well as in movies and the television. The internet is the greatest challenge of this problem. In the olden days, obtaining information about a case outside the courtoom would have been a considerably long and difficult task with a higher chance of being unconvered, however now, the itch is stronger because materials, such as newspaper articles can be obtained withing the snap of a finger. In addition to that, almost all the jurors are constantly communicating and have visual media contact with
In the last episodes of the podcast, we are introduced to various key statements that question the judicial system. In regards to combining a conclusion to make out of the facts that have been uncovered, we can conclude that the criminal justice system isn't fair to everyone. In the article “What ‘Serial’ Really Taught us”, it emphasizes on the terrible flaws in our justice system. It defines an individual who deigns to be a juror, and the one’s that try to wiggle out of jury duty. Many jurors are quick to hand down a guilty verdict if they have a hunch of a bad character on the defendant. The justice system isn’t fair to everyone, and it feels like it’s a game of Russian Roulette. Why is it that some individuals feel that the defendant is guilty, because they are standing in front of a court room? Why don’t we do a serious evaluation on a juror’s mental state about the alleged crime committed? When we go to jury duty, we are eliminated based on our own personal emotions towards a crime. Many individuals that have been jurors on high profile cases have admitted to conclude on a
He had the weakest relational ethics, he did not contribute to most of the discussions, was easily distracted, and often talked about irrelevant topics. Juror 12 was indecisive, changed his vote several times until finally deciding on “not guilty”.
Observing all the jurors, they all have different thoughts and belief about why they are truly there to determine the young boys fate. Juror seven, the individual who was obsessed with going to a baseball game, seemed not to care about the boys fate, and was self-centered. Then there were some who were so focused on facts said in court, and would not look at the circumstances surrounding the facts, for example: that there was only one switch knife like that in the world, however, that was proven wrong. Juror three was overcome by entire case, because of his son running away two years before, because the juror beat him “until he was a man.” The tenth juror allowed his prejudice mind to effect his decision, it was not until the end that he knew what he was saying was racists and held no facts (everyone is human). Juror twelve made me the most upset because he was easily bullied into a different decision every time someone talked; he truly was playing both sides.
In the 1950's, Reginald Rose penned his masterpiece, 12 Angry Men. This play introduces us to twelve men of various statures. All of these men are part of the jury who will decide the fate of a young man, who has been accused of murdering his father. At first glance of the testimonies of the witnesses in the trial, the reader, or audience, would probably agree with the norm of the jury on the guilt of the young man. If it weren't for one character in this play, juror No. 8, the deliberations of this trial would have been non-existent. At the end of this story, another juror, No. 3, states his nearly impenetrable opinion, nearly causing a hung jury. After reading or watching this play, the audience has some insight into the fact that despite how unfavourable a persons opinion may be, it is the courage to hold ones ground - sometimes with no other support but from him/herself - that must be recognized as a virtue. This story starts off in the courtroom with the jurors making their way to the deliberation room to talk about and vote on the fate of the accused. A vote is cast to see where they stand with one another on their opinions. The men have various reasons for voting the ways they do. Take, for example, who No. 7 says, "This better be fast. I've got tickets to The Seven Year Itch tonight" , or No. 2 who is "a meek, hesitant man who finds it difficult to maintain any opinions of his own.