The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty. Another conflict is that some of the jurors were hard/hot headed and stubborn. They refused to accept the stories that juror 8 proposed even when they knew he was right. It's a conflict that could've easily been avoided if half of them weren't so fulsome. The decision in the case could've been resolved sooner if not for their stubbornness. The most common negotiation that was used several times was voting for the majority just to get it over and done with. A few examples would ...
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
The jurors took a vote and saw the ratio at eleven for guilty and only one for not guilty. When they repeatedly attacked his point of view, his starting defense was that the boy was innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite as the others had seen it. After Henry Fonda instilled doubt in the mind of another juror, the two worked together to weaken the barriers of hatred and prejudice that prevented them from seeing the truth. The jurors changed their minds one at a time until the ratio stood again at eleven to one, this time in favor of acquittal. At this point, the jurors who believed the defendant was not guilty worked together to prove to the one opposing man that justice would only be found if they returned a verdict of not guilty. They proved this man wrong by using his personal experiences in life to draw him into a series of deadly contradictions.
Juror Three was the main antagonist of the story and was also the last one to change his vote to “not guilty.” Throughout “Twelve Angry Men”, he was very aggressive to anyone who did not share the same opinions as him. He stated this to Juror Eight after he was called a sadist, “Shut up! {Lunges at Eight, but is caught by two of the JURORS and is held. He struggles as EIGHT watches calmly. Then he screams.} Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” Also, it was very hard for Juror Three to change his mind. We can see this in the book and the movie. Although the facts he stated were all disproven, he would go back to them. Also, it was hard for him to change his mind because of what happened between him and his son. His son had punched him good
The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18-year-old boy for the first-degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony that was heard in court. The group went through the case over and over while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved. While the scorching hot weather conditions and personal affairs to tend to led the juror to make quick and rash decisions, one juror convinced them the fate of the 18 year old was more important than everyone’s problems an convinced them that they could not be sure he was guilty. Juror three took the most convincing. After fighting till he
It was not a good idea to take a vote without a discussion, because the other jurors do not know other opinions that might change their mind. The eighth juror voted not guilty because he did think about all of the details that happened the night of the murder. It turned out that the jurors had over looked a few
Despite knowing how angry the other men would be at him, the 8th juror stood up for the defendant and did what he could to make sure the boy had a fair trial. From the beginning, Juror eight was clearly confident in what he believed in and did not care about how foolish he looked. The confidence he showed brought the other jurors to rethink their vote. Juror nine was the first person to recognize the amount of courage it took for juror eight to stand up against the men. After being the first to change his vote nine explains “This gentleman chose to stand alone against us. That’s his right. It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly. He left the verdict up to us. He gambled for support and I gave it to him. I want to hear more. The vote is ten to two.” The 9th juror agreed with the eight juror about wanting justice. By standing up for justice he gave nine the courage to stand up for the same reason. Juror eight continued to be consistent with what he believed in. Never did he
...irrespective of what majority says. Your participation has the ability to change what others think completely. Due to Jury number 8's participation, the ratio of 1:11 votes(not guilty:guilty) changed to an over all vote of not guilty. Communication doesn't happen non-verbally right at the beginning stages of the group development. If the movie was “11 Angry Men” with Jury number 8 excluded, the other jurors would've done just given vote once, and decided the fate of the boy. Why did the group make its decision not guilty? The answer is plain and simple: “Due to group participation and interaction.” If you were in the place of juror number 8 or any other juror, would you've spoken for the boy or not?
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
I believe that both characters showed interesting standpoints for the audience to recognize and maybe even understand. Juror 3 and 8 were definitely the two most conflicting characters; they created a lot of tension within the play. I find that the play “Twelve Angry men” really brought truth to the saying “justice is blind”; prejudice simply cannot interfere with the truth, neither can it restrict reasonable doubt.
Arguably, one of the most important jurors in the story is Juror Eight. The vote count in the beginning was 11 to 1 in favor of guilty with Juror Eight being the 1, the ending vote was 12 to 0, with the verdict being not guilty. Juror Eight looks at all the evidence in a different way and asks questions that make the others do a double take. If Juror Eight was on the jury for the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray, and if there is any reasonable doubt, he would most likely think Dr. Murray was not guilty. From the play, Juror Eight says that, “As far as I know, we’re suppose to decide whether or not the boy on trial is guilty.
Lewicki, R., Saunders, D.M., Barry B., (2010) Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases. 6th Ed. McGraw-Hill Irwin. New York, NY
The Factors Influencing the Way Each of the Members of the Jury Perceived the Murder in Twelve Angry Men
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2010). Negotiation Readings, Exercises and Cases (6th ed.). New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill.
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2010). Negotiation: Readings, exercises, and cases. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin
Juror no. 8 says: “As far as I know, We’re supposed to decide whether or not the boy is guilty, not being concerned with anyone else’s motives.” He gradually goes from talking to these men who are becoming irritated at how long the process was taking until point after point he makes each one reconsider or at least doubt that the boy is guilty. Maybe the witnesses couldn’t have seen what happened, maybe the evidence wasn’t anything special. By the end of all three acts Juror no . 9 says: “It takes a great deal to stand alone” when talking to the angry juror no. 3, who will only be able to sleep at night if the young supposed “murderer” is sentenced to death. He was at this point in act three, the only juror who didn’t have a reasonable doubt that the defendant murdered his father.