In a deliberation, it is essential to be motivated by something to deliberate. There are certain characteristics that define deliberation as outlined in Gastil’s criteria, but an underlying question is why do people choose to take part on a deliberation? What makes us want to follow criteria stated by Gastil? In our recent class deliberations, it seems that in order to be motivated to deliberate a topic, we must have true personal stakes in the topic at hand. Being college students, we are living
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
today and be sure without a reasonable doubt of this boy’s guilt, as this guilty verdict means an automatic sentence of death. A 12-man jury leaves the court room, and enters the deliberation room, which is extremely hot and small quarters to determine the young man’s fate. The men, names never given during deliberation, are only referred to by their jury number, actually sit around the table in the order of their number. The jurors immediately take a vote, and eleven vote guilty, while Juror 8 votes
trial for the murder of his abusive father. A jury of twelve men are locked in the deliberation room to decide the fate of the young boy. All evidence is against the boy and a guilty verdict would send him to die in the electric chair. The judge informs the jurors that they are faced with a grave decision and that the court would not entertain any acts of mercy for the boy if found guilty. Even before the deliberation talks begin it is apparent most of the men are certain the boy is guilty. However
The first example of how prejudice impeded jury deliberations was when juror 10 says that all of the kids that are from a violent or troubled background are liars and always lies. This pointing to the 18 year old being tried in court for murder; and that he is lying about what happened, all because he is
direction that is constructive, and avoid conflicts. In the movie there were many contrasting personalities. Juror 3 was very aggressive and stubborn. Juror 10 was very casual and didn’t present any serious point of view. Juror 7 just wanted the deliberations to end as fast as possible. Juror 8 is the person most suitable for a leadership role. He is a person who thinks before he speaks and is ready to listen to others. He is consistent and logical and at the same time democratic and hence was able
other jurors. Key aspects of the preparation stage, as defined by Budjac Corvette and utilized by juror 8, include preparation occurring prior to the negotiation meeting, research, and determining negotiation tactic and style. Throughout the jury deliberation, juror 8 disclosed information
Environmental Science The most striking aspect about the environmental side of the Woburn case was how different all of the experts’ opinions and methodologies were. Each expert seemed to have their own calculations based on their own theories, some of which were more widely accepted than others. There were some similarities, but for the most part, their methodologies varied greatly. John Guswa based most of his work on a glacier and a complicated calculation that ended up being incorrect. Olin
or not to remove the death penalty. As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,... ... middle of paper ... ...ive years
1. The jury consists people from different background. For example, in this jury, they have coach (juror#1), broker (#4), marketing person (#6) architect (#8) and watchmaker (#11); they have senior person (#9 & #10) and middle-aged person, they have serious person (most of them) and casual person (#7). Generally speaking I think the diversity do help the functioning as a team, because some people can see something the other cannot see. For example, one jury often see people fight with knives when
At the beginning of “12 Angry Men” the judge says to the jury “One man is dead, the life of another is at stake. I urge you to deliberate thoughtfully and honestly,” this is putting the verdict completely on the jury. If any reasonable doubt is at hand they jury must confirm a verdict of not guilty. Therefore, the conflict begins. The men agree on taking a preliminary vote, the end total was eleven guilty and one not guilty. The ending of the vote leaves the men in a conflict of convincing one
have learned thus far. In doing so, I will apply the key concepts of conformity, obedience, persuasion, group influence, and prejudice. 12 Angry Men is about the jury deliberations of 12 men as they decide if a young Puerto Rican man, who is accused of killing his father, is guilty or not guilty. At the start of the jury deliberations, Juror #1, Martin Balsam, the amicable jury foreman, wanted to achieve the goal of keeping the jury proceedings in order. He suggested a preliminary vote and six of the
Injustice Seminar Questions Directions: Please answer each of the questions in detail with evidence from text 12 Angry Men. As always, I encourage you to make. real world connections, use personal examples, and to connect to other sources of literature. Make sure your answers are easy to read, are at least 5-8 sentences in length, and contain at least 2 pieces of evidence from the text. This play has been used to teach students about group behavior and the role of individual influence in group
Bang! “All rise!” the clerk shouted. All twelve of them shuffled through the door, creating a muffled sound that broke the eerie silence of the courtroom located at 1127 Tower Lane. They solemnly walked down the hallway to the jury room. Unlike previous breaks in the trial where they laughed and conversed about their families and jobs, they were silent except for the occasional cough or sneeze. All of the jurors sensed the magnitude of the situation and felt the hallway stretching in length, a never-ending
Different personalities have different effects on situations. Sometimes, you have to dig deeper into someone’s personalities to understand their places. In the film Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, twelve jurors come together and their different personalities create the whole story. The nature of each character had a different effect on the story. There are ways to simplify personalities by symbolizing them. In Diagram #1, Juror #12 is distant, Juror #8 is in the center, and Juror #3 is inside
The 1957 film 12 Angry Men is a powerful depiction of one man’s strong leadership and negotiation skills clashing with a diverse, goal-oriented group. This movie acts an excellent example and teacher for good small group communication. Many aspects of this film can pertain to realistic group communication, and three prominent subjects in the film are leadership, negotiation, and diversity in groups and teams. The film tells the story of twelve jurors who must come to a conviction on a murder case
I entered the jury deliberation not guilty, and I left not guilty. I remained not guilty despite the pressure from my fellow jurors to “compromise” at a second degree murder verdict (which was not a compromise from my perspective at all) or to go all the way up to a first degree murder charge. I thought that this case was an easy “not guilty.” It definitely was not. The first thing I wanted to do was to see where people were at, so we all went around and said what we believed the verdict was. We
Deliberation on the legalization and regulation of marijuana is divisive where one side argues for its economic contribution through taxes while the other argues against it because of the health concerns associated with prolonged marijuana use. On one hand, there are social and health issues that arise at the expense of marijuana legalization, which is bound to encourage prolonged use among youth who are then vulnerable to addiction and mental health problems. On the other hand, the economic and
Deliberation can save democracy. At least that’s what deliberative democrats James Fishkin and Bruce Ackerman argue in their article Deliberation Day. They believe that “If we are to preserve and deepen our democratic life… we must create institutions that sustain citizen engagement in a shared public dialogue” (Fishkin 130). In their paper, Fishkin and Ackerman argue specifically for the creation of a national deliberation holiday, but more generally for an increase in the amount of constructive
“Dialogue and Deliberation” by Josina Makua and Debian Marty and “Cosmopolitanism” by Kmawe Anthony Appiah, discuss how it is important to look at and listen to other people’s views and beliefs in order to be fully engaged. Makua and Marty believe that through constructive engagement, we can have a peaceful world but we are not there yet because we live in a world of arguments. People argue to win and to get their beliefs heard but they refuse to listen to other people’s beliefs. Similarly, Appiah