The Analysis of the Movie 12 Angry Men

The movie 12 Angry Men gradually moves from an argument about placements to whether an 18-year-old young boy need to be provided the death penalty. As well as, the movie likewise includes an integrative negotiation through excellent negotiation techniques made use of by juror number 8. Juror number 8 facilitates this shift by separating the people from the trouble, focusing on passions, and also working out with unbiased criteria. Juror number 8's settlement techniques were important in creating a practical and also educated decision by the jury.

The start of the settlement was defined by positional negotiation versus the vote of juror number 8. The opposing 11 jurors tried and took a position to persuade juror number 8 to change his vote to guilty. The opposing 11 jurors took a setting, as well as when juror 8 refuted their position with concerns of why they assumed the charged was guilty they dismissed his concerns as absurd as well as stayed with their original setting. This series of the arrangement mishandled and identified by disorganization, yelling, and a lack of factor. If the negotiation had continued to be positional, relationships with juror 8 could have been harmed irreparable, which would have extended the arrangement. If juror 8 had actually yielded to the positional disagreement of the opposing 11 jurors then it would have produced a risky arrangement not based on careful evaluation of the facts of the situation given up court. The start of this arrangement reveals us how inadequate as well as inefficient positional negotiating can be.

To make this settlement more efficient juror 8 had to separate individuals from the issue by taking into account different assumptions, control of feelings, and also excellent communication. Juror 8 not just asked the other jurors to consider his perception of the instance, but he also considered the young boy guilty. Juror 8 thoroughly listened without disturbing the other jurors in order to deduce their feelings and just how their feelings contributed to their viewpoint. This was completed by asking every juror to state why they believe the suspect to be guilty. By concentrating on the genuine emotions of the jurors, juror 8 was then able to highlight the seriousness of the problem and make the negotiation pro-active. Juror number 8 additionally allowed his challengers to allow off steam. He let them go on tirades, shouting rampages, as well as also sustained personal attacks all without responding to their psychological outbursts. These rants and personal attacks came particularly from jurors 3, 7, and also 10. Because the jurors did not know each various other and also felt aggressive as well as questionable toward each various other, communication was additionally a problem right from the begin. Efficient communication in between the jurors was also hard since several of the jurors that elected guilty were not communicating constructively. Instead they were simply trying to persuade various other jurors to vote guilty. Juror 8 conquered these communication issues by paying attention proactively to the viewpoints of all jurors and also taking into account each other jurors' viewpoint, not assaulting the views of the various other jurors, as well as being concise as well as clear when engaging in communication with the various other jurors. By separating individuals from the issue, juror number 8 was ultimately able to convince his challengers to agree with him and also rule blameless.

Each of the preliminary opposing jurors had underlying passions that contributed to the issue that juror 8 had to recognize and also resolve. At the beginning of the negotiation all of the jurors with the exception of juror 8 wanted making a decision the judgment in a timely manner so they could take care of other company. Especially, juror 3 was interested in punishing a troubled youth that reminded him of his own kid, who he had not talked to in 2 years. Juror 7 had an interest in not missing out on a baseball video game that he had tickets to, and also juror 10 had an interest in penalizing the suspect because of bias he held versus people who originated from bitter pills of community. Jurors 1 as well as 12 simply wanted to be done with the whole process. Jurors 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11 were most thinking about making an informed choice based on the realities of the instance. In order to identify these passions, juror 8 asked the concern "Why?" to every juror's guilty vote. As soon as juror 8 had actually recognized the rate of interests of each juror, he had the ability to start talking about each passion. Juror 8 asked his fellow jurors multiple times just how they would certainly act if they had been defeated by their daddies regularly as the suspect had. This assisted his challengers to recognize why the suspect had such a struggling past, and when everyone stopped seeking to the suspect's past rap sheet they were able to concentrate on the instance at hand. Juror 8 utilized the rate of interests of his challengers to accomplish his objective of an unanimous choose blameless by being difficult on the rate of interests as well as attacking the trouble that the rate of interests developed instead of making use of personal attacks.

Negotiating with unbiased standards showed to be arguably the most reliable of juror 8's techniques to encourage his fellow jurors to vote innocent. Juror 8 was under pressure from the beginning when he was the only juror not to elect the suspect guilty, as well as never ever as soon as did juror 8 yield to stress. Juror 8 did not provide concessions to his challengers, and also his challengers were not able to withstand to his advancements via making use of unbiased criteria. Juror 8 used the facts that were presented in the test by the senior man that heard the lady and also the altercation who experienced the murder through the passing el train to stem argument. He utilized reason to demonstrate that the testimony given was not adequate to create an exact verdict because the el train would certainly have made it nearly impossible for the elderly male to hear the run-in, and it would certainly have taken the elderly male too long to get up from his bed as well as make it to the door where he can have seen the awesome fleeing the crime. Factor was likewise made use of to determine that the lady who watched the murder from her window probably did not have sufficient vision to identify the awesome because she had the very same glasses marks as juror 4 did. Juror 8 prepared to present the objective standards that the murder tool was not so rare by mosting likely to the suspect's area as well as locating a dagger similar to it. This objective requirements decorated the concept in the various other jurors' minds. That perhaps this can have been a one in a million coincidence that the murder weapon as well as the blade the suspect acquired were two totally various knives. Juror 8 offered this unbiased standards in a well considered and also organized way. Through cautious analysis of the facts juror 8 convinced his opponents that the proof and eyewitness accounts were within an affordable question as well as a result not requiring of a sentence.

As a result of juror 8 separating the people from the trouble, focusing on rate of interests, as well as discussing with objective standards. Juror 8 was able to efficiently convince all of his fellow jurors to elect the acquittal of the suspect. Juror 8 efficiently transformed a settlement that started as inefficient as well as positional as well as previously owned approaches gone over in guide Getting To Yes to transform the negotiation to one that was integrative. As soon as juror 8 had actually recognized passions and also controlled feelings he had the ability to make use of unbiased requirements to persuade his objectors to agree with his point of views.

Cite this page