12 Angry Men Mid-Term Case Study
Table of Contents
Page 1 – Cover Title Page
Page 4 -5– Brief list of the major case issues that are instrumental in deciding the jury conclusion.
Pages 6-11 Jury Member No. 8, Character played by Henry Fonda. Address the following three (3) questions in a minimum of six (6) pages:
a) How would you describe his negotiations approach?
b) There are at least forty (40) Negotiations techniques defined and discussed in the course text. Please identify at least ten (10) that Juror No. 8 used during this movie. Also, clearly describe the circumstance where in the movie he used such technique(s). Then describe the result from its use.
c) Identify at least two (2) compromises that he had made? Explain what they were and the effective result of each.
Pages 12-16: From your list of ten (10) Negotiations techniques that Juror No. 8 used, compose a minimum of five (5) pages to complete a) and b) below:
a) Select five (5) and write a detailed explanation of how your use of these techniques could be applied in your personal and business life.
b) For each of the five (5) chosen techniques, write and explain the result you would hope to achieve by use of that technique.
Pages 17-19: Jury Member No. 4, Character played by E.G. Marshall. Address the following questions. This will require a minimum of three (3) pages:
a) How would you describe this individual’s negotiations strategy and approach? Use the terminology defined from the text and how he implements that approach and strategy.
b) What was the basis of his “guilty” analysis? Explain his justification for each point.
c) What negotiations techniques were employed by Juror No. 8 to change Juror No. 4’s mind and vote differently? Explain the circumstances and detail involved.
Page 20-22: Juror No. 3, Character Played by Lee J. Cobb. Address the following questions:
a) What is the strategy of Juror No. 3?
b) What is Juror No. 3’s style and approach with the other Juror members? Please explain and give examples as part of your response. Be specific.
c) Towards the end of the movie, when there were only three (3) jurors remaining that were voting guilty, what role did juror No. 3 play in changing the vote position of the last three jurors. Explain the incident, circumstances and the influence that juror no. 3 had on these three (3) jurors to change their mind.
Page 23: Bibliography
Major Case Issues
There were several major case issues, which aided the jurors in reaching a verdict. Listed below are the case discrepancies:
- Initially, the condemning piece of evidence for majority of the jurors was the rarity of switchblade used in the crime. Once juror #8 presented a similar switchblade of his own, he proved to the other jurors that the crime weapon wasn’t as unique as suspected.
- Another factor in the case were the witnesses. The first witness is an old man who lived below the defendant. The old man’s testimony declares that he overheard a disagreement between the defendant and his father. Later that night, he states that he overheard the boy scream, “I’m going to kill you!” Following the outburst, he heard the father fall to the floor and footsteps running away. The old man testified that he ran from his bedroom to his front door, opened it, and witnessed the defendant fleeing the scene. Unconvinced, juror #8 questions the reliability of the old man’s testimony. There was a L train passing the apartment windows, which would have made it seemingly impossible for the old man to hear the defendant yell, “I am going to kill you!”
- Even if the old man did hear the defendant’s threat of killing his father, the exclamation may have been taken out of context. Thus, the old man’s testimony isn’t completely credible. Additionally, the old man developed a walking impairment as a result of suffering a stroke. Thus, it would’ve taken him more than 15 seconds to get from point a, the bedroom to point b, the front door.
- The other witness in the case was a woman who lived across from the defendant. She claims to be an eye witness to the murder. The woman claims that she witnessed the defendant stab his father his father in the chest through the windows of the passing L train. After further discussion, the jurors develop probable doubt due to the woman’s impaired vision. The indentations on the sides of the woman’s nose indicated that she wore glasses. It is highly unlikely that the woman had time to retrieve her glasses while witnessing the murder. Therefore, the woman’s ability to clearly identify the defendant during the murder (through the windows of the passing L train) is improbable.
- Another major case issue is the defendant’s “return” to the scene of the crime. The female witness stated that she screamed after witnessing the crime. This would have notified the defendant that someone else observed the murder. If the boy did in fact kill his father, it would’ve been illogical for him to return and risk getting caught.
- According to the defendant, he was at the movies during the murder. When he came home, he found his father stabbed to death on the bedroom floor. Detectives apprehended the defendant and questioned his alibi. At the time, the defendant was unable to recall the title and actors in the featured film. The jurors deemed the boy’s temporary lag in memory as a result of being placed under extreme stress and shock.
- Lastly, the jurors closely analyzed the direction/position of the stab wound. The wound indicates that the murderer stabbed the father “down and in”. As a product of his environment, the jurors presumed that the defendant would be greatly familiar with how to the properly handle a switchblade. Only an unskillful handler would stab “down and in” because it requires a two-handed maneuver. A skilled switchblade handler would use a one handed, upward jab.How would you describe his negotiations approach?
Initially, juror #8, played by actor Henry Fonda, used a manipulative negotiation approach to gain the attention of the other jurors. By the end of the deliberation, the negotiation became a collaborative effort amongst the jurors. Each of the members of the jury had different mindset and viewpoints regarding the case; however, they were all eager to deem the defendant “guilty”. This was up until juror #8 forced them to sit back and analyze the details. Coming into the trial, juror #7 made it no secret that there was somewhere that he’d rather be. A ballgame to be exact. Because he was missing out on the game, he was ready to get on the verdict over with. Juror #5 grew up with a similar background as the defendant. Thus, he was distracted by his similarities with the accused murderer. As a result of an estranged relationship with own son, Juror #3 came into the deliberation jilted and close-minded. Regardless, juror #8 navigated through the deliberation formidably and was resilient when faced with opposition. Instead of siding with the majority, he stood his ground and developed his own methodologies.
To support his unpopular decision, juror #8 utilized thought provoking strategies to get the juices flowing. He was able to persuade the other jurors that the “facts” of the case were nothing more than circumstantial evidence. The other jurors were floored by Fonda’s vote of not guilty; however, he was able to maintain a level-head while he answered their inquiries. Instead of jumping to a conclusion, he thoroughly pieced together the case and tried to make plausible sense of everything. Fonda’s character expressed, no jury can announce a man liable unless they are certain (Fonda and Rose, 1957). As a country, the judicial system deems it unconstitutional for a jury to deliver a guilty verdict, unless the vote is unanimous and there is absolutely no probable doubt. With the defendant’s life at stake, juror #8 challenged the other members of the jury to practice open-mindedness. He was able to maneuver pass their obstinate mindsets and remind the other jurors that we as humans aren’t infallible beings.
There are at least forty (40) Negotiations techniques defined and discussed in the course text. Please identify at least ten (10) that Juror No. 8 used during this movie. Also, clearly describe the circumstance where in the movie he used such technique(s). Then describe the result from its use.
Throughout the course of the deliberation, Juror #8 used numerous negotiation techniques. The first technique that he utilized was self-control (forbearance). He successfully maintained his composure and was persistent in his approach. Instead of making a rash decision with the other jurors, he persuaded them to sit down and actually discuss the case. Even after receiving much backlash from his angry counterparts, Juror #8 polarized his thoughts and remained intentional with his remarks. According to the text, someone who practices forbearance holds his tongue despite temptation to react (Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders, 2015, p. 48). This is the exact approach that Juror #8 against his outraged opponents.
The next technique that was used during the movie was role reversal. Role reversal is a practice that promotes open-mindedness. During role reversal, opponents are challenged to put aside their own opinions on an issue, to place themselves in the others’ shoes. A great example from the film was when Juror #3 exclaimed, “I’ll kill you!” out of anger. This outburst further solidified Juror #8’s stance that the defendant may have made such a threat without any real malicious intent. Additionally, Juror #8 challenged Juror #4’s theory that the defendant had to be guilty since he could not recall the title of the film on the day of his arrest. When Juror #8 placed #4’s memory to the same test, he too failed to recall details from his film. Thus, room for reasonable doubt continued to grow within the minds of the other jurors.
He also accommodated the jurors, by obliging their personal interests in a strategic manner in order to determine the issue. Because he understood that each of the other jurors came from various types of backgrounds with an array of moral beliefs and practices; he listened attentively as they voiced their points of view. He took a backseat or the “lose to win” approach. The text states that with the accommodating strategy, one will purposefully “lose” on the outcome dimension in order to “win” on the relationship dimension (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2015, p. 16). Even though he could have shown his frustrations, spat off all of his opinions and raised his voice much like several of his opponents; he deemed it more important to build a sense of comradery amongst the other jurors. He knew that if he built a good rapport with some of other jurors early on, that he would have a better chance of persuading them to side in his favor later on.
Another negotiation technique used in the movie is social confirmation. An example from the movie is the altercation between Juror #8 and #3. As mentioned earlier, juror #3 threatened to kill juror #8. The events leading up to this harsh exclamation have to do with social confirmation. When juror #8 referred to #3 as a “sadist” and “public avenger”, juror #3 became angry enough to make death threats. This is because he’d feared that his reputation was now tainted. Not only was he concerned with how this stranger viewed him but how his statements may affect the outlooks of the other jurors as well. Having his self- image ridiculed really made a big impact on credible the other jurors identified him.
Furthermore, probing/testing is another negotiating technique demonstrated in the movie. The purpose of this technique is to ask questions that that pose hypotheticals, pry for more details, and seek deeper clarification (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2015, p. 51) to gain additional information. This was one of the most influential techniques that Juror 8 used to instill reason for probable doubt. He asked the other juror several “what-if” questions: “What if the switchblade did fall out of his pocket?” “What if the boy couldn’t remember the movie because he was under high stress?” “Well isn’t possible that the woman falsely identified the murdered because she could see clearly?” These probing questions were the driving force behind juror #8’s began theoretical inquiries. When the other jurors tried to shut down any alternate possibilities to “facts” of the case, juror #8 demonstrated why testing their theories is essential. For example, he proved to the other jurors that losing/finding a similar switchblade was in fact a possibility.
Presenting the switchblade also falls under the element of surprise. The text states that “this strategy involves a sudden shift in whatever course you may have taken. It is swift, drastic, and even emotionally dramatic. The text also states that the surprise technique doesn’t have to involve a loud, high energy shift (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2015, p. 49). Juror #8 silently utilized the element of surprise with his initial vote on the verdict. You see, all of the members of the jury anticipated a quick and easy deliberation process. With all of the evidence to consider, majority of the jurors felt as though the defendant should’ve been convicted without evening apply much thought. As a formality, juror #1 acted as the foreman and called for a collective vote. No one predicted juror #8 to go against the grain. The initial vote declared the boy as guilt with a 11-1 vote. Because the conviction must be based on a unanimous vote, juror #8’s “not guilty” verdict threw everyone else for a loop. By the end of the negotiation, juror #8’s insight had an unforeseen rippling effect on all of the other jurors.
Another one of the ten negotiating techniques is disassociation, which also played a significant part of the film. Many of the jurors, especially juror #10 deemed the boy as guilty, simply because of where he was raised. He believed the boy to be nothing more than the product of his negative environment. This demonstrated that individuals were slanted to relate a man’s activities and mien as an unfavorable impact of nature they lived in. The more that juror #10 expressed his prejudice towards the boy’s affiliation; the more he that it isn’t reasonable to classify someone as a criminal. It is unjust to classify someone as felonious simply because they are poor or lower class. While juror #10 continued to criminalize and categorize all people raised in bad neighborhoods as liars, murderers, and thieves; juror #8 contested his rationalization by pointing out that the witnesses were also products of that same environment. Thus, what makes the witnesses’ testimonies any more credible that the defendants? Juror #8 was able to apply the boy’s affiliation to work in his favor. At this point, the other jurors began to understand that it was not helpful to condemn the kid based on his association without recognizing the equivalent for every other person involved in the case.
Silence is another technique that was addressed as the jurors discussed the verdict. Juror #1 took on the role of foreman as soon as the gentleman entered the deliberation room. With this self-appointed title, he served as the mediator throughout the course of the discussion. While the other jurors tried their best to persuade juror #8 as to why they felt the defendant should be ruled as guilty; juror #1 sat back and allowed the exchange to take place. Juror #8 used silence to his benefit. Per the text, in order for silence to work, the negotiator has to know when to stop talking and when to start talking. He must not undermine his position with too many words, but he also must not undermine it with too much aloofness (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2015, p. 49). Juror #8 did not speak unless he actually had something meaningful to present. After listening to the foreman go around the table to each of the jurors, Juror #8 interjected. Not only did his break in silence stir the ambiance of the room, but it caused a major shift in the other jurors’ thought process. He addressed each of their concerns directly and with such confidence that other jurors began to question their original stances.
Evaluations of Assumptions is another effective negotiation technique. The assumptions we make are a vital part of our human communication system. We use them continuously in sorting out and trying to make sense of the millions of ambiguous mental stimuli that confront us (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2015, p. 63). Based on the evidence and witness testimonies, all of the jurors assumed that the boy must be guilty. Even juror #8 wasn’t completely certain of the boy’s innocence. However, as the negotiation ensued, he evaluated all of the assumptions in order to make an educated decision. Over the span of the film, Juror #8 challenged all of the proof, analyzed it, and used deductive reasoning to contend its accuracy, as well as its legitimacy and significance. This brings us back to the authenticity of the switchblade. The store owner expressed that the weapon was one of a kind. Therefore, it was assumed that the weapon used at the scene of the crime had to be the same switchblade that the boy purchased several hours prior. Juror #8 dispelled the validity of this assumption after finding and purchasing a similar switchblade of his own in the same neighborhood.
Lastly, Juror #8 used the fait accompli technique in the film. Per the text, this technique may be risky because it forces you to act and then to wait and see what the response may be (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2015, p. 50). During the debate, Juror #8 gave each of the other members a chance to clarify their position. His point in this methodology was to tempt a positive reaction by not appearing to be furious or negative in any capacity. He isolated himself during the initial vote. Due to his dexterous execution of his negotiation techniques, he was able to effectively verbalize his perspectives and conclusions. Thus, impacting a positive change that could save a potentially innocent young man’s life. In this case, the other jurors eventually responded in favor of Juror #8.
Identify at least two (2) compromises that he had made? Explain what they were and the effective result of each.
Juror #8 initiated several small compromises throughout the flow of the film. While some of the bargains were as little acknowledgments of verbal correspondence, some of the compromises were demonstrated with gifted responses. The first compromise that stuck out to me was the underlying agreement with the other jurors to deliberate the case for a minimum of 60 minutes. Although juror #8 intended on having a full-blown discussion, he reasoned with the other members (who’d originally wanted to cast their decision in a span of 5 minutes), to meet him somewhere in the middle.
The second compromise that comes to mind is the jury reaching an agreement to cast a blind vote. The purpose of this compromise was to determine if extra discussion was required in this deliberation process. Juror #8 stated that in the event that the blind vote unanimously stated that the boy is guilty, then he would sway his decision and change his vote to match the others. Needless to say, Juror #8’s switchblade stunt changed the mind of one other juror. Because at least one other person changed his decision to not guilty, the panel continued to deliberate the boy’s fate.
From your list of ten (10) Negotiations techniques that Juror No. 8 used, compose a minimum of five (5) pages to complete a) and b) below:
a) Select five (5) and write a detailed explanation of how your use of these techniques could be applied in your personal and business life.
Negotiation is an important skill that everyone should have. Whether in business, in governments, or looking for a salary raise, negotiations always comes into play. Even though negotiations are always thought of in terms of big and grandiose events like contracts, compensations, or international trade, the reality is that negotiations take place on a daily basis (Latz, 2011). It is important that people take seriously their smaller and daily negotiations opportunity and horn their skills for when they are faced with bigger negotiations. Irrespective of size, negotiations use the same techniques and tactics.
According to Prossack (2018), a referendum should be viewed as a compromise. In a negotiation, parties come together, have a discussion, and agree on certain issues that affect the needs of everyone involved. The goal of a negotiation is to expose both the common and opposing interests of the parties involved in the negotiation process. The following are some of the most commonly used negotiation techniques, and their applications in real-life applications.
Forbearance
Forbearance is a term borrowed from investment and banking which refers to the practice of temporary postponement of mortgage payments. A lender grants this form of relief to debtor instead of forcing the latter’s property into foreclosure (Zohar, 2015). The concept can also be used in negotiations to make sure that all the parties think about their responses to the issues on the table, and to avoid making rash decisions.
In a forbearance negotiation approach, the parties hold off the negotiation process, suspend everything and put off an answer. This is also known as “patience pays” strategy because it involves sitting back and waiting for the other party to think about the options on the table. The aim of the forbearance is to make sure that the parties involved take their time to think about the options, as well as avoid having direct conflict with each other. The trick to having the right approach to forbearance is to know when to stop in the negotiation process.
Disassociation
The people that one associates with often can give an impression of who they are. This is true in politics, in business, and even in private life. Once someone is associated with a criminal faction, for instance, the image of the individual becomes tainted, and this might make it hard for them to get certain opportunities in life (Latz, 2011). The best way to get out of this is through disassociation. In other words, this is the act of making it clear that one’s alleged association with another person or a group is a falsehood.
The association and disassociation are common in the political arena. Politicians can associate or disassociate with a certain group, proposal, or movement, et cetera, with the aim of persuading the public opinion in a certain direction (Fisher & William, 2012).
The technique of disassociation is a common technique that can be applied in the business negotiations or any other form of negotiation (Fisher & William, 2012). The aim of disassociation is to ensure that one’s image is not compromised. A compromised image would make an individual come into a negotiation table weakened.
Probing/Testing
Probing or testing is an important negotiation skill that have been used to get good deals many times. In probing or testing, the negotiators ask the question “what if?” This is where a hypothetical scenario is given in order to know how the other party would react (Zohar, 2015). Testing is important because it helps the negotiators understand how the parties would react under different circumstances. I would use probing in my business and personal negotiation because it is a good way of getting better results. When going into a negotiation table, I would use probing to break deadlocks that may hinder negotiation from going on (Fisher & William, 2012).
Role Reversal
Role reversal is important in negotiations because they allow each of the parties to look at things from the other person’s perspective. The idea is for negotiators to “walk a mile in each other’s shoes.” Sometimes people go into the negotiation table with hard-line stance, but once they understand the other party’s concerns, it becomes easier to reach some form of agreement (Latz, 2011). As a negotiator, I would always want to think in terms of what the other person thinks. It is good to “walk a mile in the other person’s shoes.” This is important because it makes it easy to understand why they have hard line stance on certain issues (Zohar, 2015).
Accommodation
Accommodation is a “give and take” kind of approach in negotiation. It is the basic principle guiding any negotiation process. In a negotiating table, people must accept that the parties have different backgrounds, and have different interests (Zohar, 2015). Working as logistics officer in the US Army, I am accustomed to working with people of different culture backgrounds. It is important that the diversity of the negotiating teams be taken into considerations during the negotiation process.
For each of the five (5) chosen techniques, write and explain the result you would hope to achieve by use of that technique.
I would use the forbearance technique in making sure that I always get the best deal possible in any situation. In a business environment, for instance, people negotiate on a regular basis. It is wise for people to go into negotiation rooms in a group. The selection of groups must be done in such a way that group members selected have experience and skills in negotiations (Zohar, 2015). When new facts or proposal come up in the process of negotiation, it is good for the negotiating teams to adjourn the process briefly, discuss the options in an aside meeting, and come back to the table to continue with the process.
When using disassociation in a business set up, for instance, when negotiating how to handle a court case, negotiators tend to disassociate their companies with the allegations. By refuting the allegations, the company comes into the negotiation table having a somewhat better image compared to if such a company came onto the table with a tainted image. As a negotiator using disassociation, I would expect to present my side as strong, not compromised, and having an upper hand in the negotiation.
Probing would give me the advantage of exploring how the other parties view the matters. Probing helps the parties to understand the limits of each other, in terms what each is willing to compromise and what each is not willing to compromise. The trick to having a good negotiation using probing technique is to carry out research in order to find out the various conditions or options that can possibly be considered by the other parties.
Using role reversal allows for me to walk in other people’s shoes. It also gives the right idea of what the other person would compromise and what they would never let go. This approach makes it easy to have a realistic negotiation, thus yielding me with positive results. Likewise, I expect the same when using accommodation techniques. With accommodation’s “give and take” strategy, I expect to for the negotiation to run smoother because of my demonstration of understanding and willingness to work the other parties.
Jury Member No. 4 (Character played by E.G. Marshall)
How would you describe this individual’s negotiations strategy and approach? Use the terminology defined from the text and how he implements that approach and strategy.
I would describe Juror #4’s negotiation strategy and approach as collaborative and rational. In the textbook, these techniques focus on forming both a relationship while yielding an outcome. This result is most likely when both parties find a resolution that meets the needs of each (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2015, p. 16). Much like the other jurors, he believed the boy to be guilty. Juror #4 based his decision on what he felt was undeniable evidence, which proved the defendant’s guilt.
When Juror #8 challenged him to defend his reasoning, he stood firm on the witness statements and the fact that the boy failed to recall the title of the film. Much like the other jurors, he displayed prejudice to support why he deemed the boy’s likely of committing the crime. Based on his logic, the boy is a product of his environment; a place that produces criminals and low lives. Because he based his decision on the facts of the case and was supported as a collaborative effort from the other jurors, he maintained a false sense of power. It wasn’t until Juror #8 performed role reversal that his opinion began to waiver. Juror #4 failed to recall all of the details from the movie he’d viewed the previous week. This countered his original statement that the boy had to be guilty if he couldn’t remember the film.
What was the basis of his “guilty” analysis? Explain his justification for each point.
As stated previously, his guilty verdict had basis on an underlying prejudice. Because the boy grew up in the slums, the juror automatically associated him as a natural born criminal. What stuck out most in Juror #4’s mind was the fact that the boy purchased an unlawful weapon. In light of the recent argument with his father, in the mind of juror #4; it was completely rational for the boy to seek revenge and use the weapon to commit the murder. He also found the boy’s alibi as faulty. Not only did the boy fail to recollect the details of the movie during his cross examination; there were no witnesses to corroborate the boy’s story. No one seen the boy exit or enter the building for the film. The old man only affirmed to have saw him running down the steps after the murder.
Furthermore, Juror #4 believed that the switchblade falling through a hole in the boy’s pocket to be an incredulous tale. Prior to Juror #8 revealing a similar switchblade, he’d believed that the boy’s weapon was one of a kind. Even after Juror #8’s surprise switchblade tactic, Juror #4 found little room for coincidence throughout the whole scenario. To support his claims, he tied in the eye witness story. In his mind, the boy had to be guilty if there was an eye witness to attest to observing the murder take place. The woman claims to have been tossing and turning the night of the murder. As she turned towards her window, which was directly across from the boy’s; she witnessed the boy raise his arm and stab his father with the blade in a downward motion. While observing Juror #4 recount the details of the woman’s testimony, Juror #9 noticed the way that he kept rubbing the corners of his nose. He also pointed out the indentations on #4’s nose, which were a result of him wearing glasses. After further review, the jurors reach the conclusion that the woman’s vision could’ve been impaired. She too, had indentations on the corners of her nose. Juror #4 admitted that he did not wear his glasses while in bed. Therefore, it was highly unlikely that the woman had on glasses while viewing the murder take place from 60 feet outside of her window. With this new-found information to consider, Juror #4 swayed his decision, as there was now room for reasonable doubt. The woman’s allegations held less weight in his mind.
What negotiations techniques were employed by Juror No. 8 to change Juror No. 4’s mind and vote differently? Explain the circumstances and detail involved.
As discussed previously, Juror #8 exhibited role reversal techniques while swaying Juror #4 to vote differently. Juror #4 was adamant regarding the boy’s guilty verdict since he was unable to remember the title and key characters of his alleged film. Juror #8 felt as though the boy’s loss in memory to be subjective to the given circumstances. To test his theory, he invited juror #4 to recollect his series of events within the past 72 hours, nevertheless 3 months ago. Juror #4 struggled to complete the task.
Additionally, probing/testing techniques were used in this exchange. Juror #8 posed several “what if” questions to instill reasonable doubt amongst the other jurors. While analyzing the female’s accounts of the murder, the jurors discovered that she probable wore glasses. She did not wear her glasses to the trial, in hopes of looking more attractive to the public; however, the indentations on her nose the bridge of her nose were still quite visible. With that being said, Juror #8 probed #4 about the validity of woman’s authentication. Not only did the murder take place at night, with a passing L train to obscure the witness’s focus; it was highly unlikely that she had on her glasses while in bed. Juror #8 tested #4 by asking: “If he wore his glasses to bed? Did he think that the woman would’ve had on glasses while in bed? Can the nose indentations be caused by anything other than glasses? Did he believed that the woman had enough time to put on her glasses before peering out of her window?” With all of Juror #4’s responses falling in favor with Juror #8’s speculations, he could no longer be so sure that the boy committed the crime. With Juror #8’s insightful viewpoints in mind, Juror #4 opted to change his plea from guilty to not guilty.
Juror Number Three (Character played by Lee J. Cobb)
What is the strategy of Juror No. 3?
Juror #3 played more of an antagonist role in the film. He was very excitable and used a very competitive approach throughout the negotiation. Per the text, you use this strategy if you want to win at all cost, and have no concern about the future state of the relationship (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2015, p. 16). He had very little regard for building positive relationships with the other jurors, which became apparent from his aggressive demeanor. His only goal was to convict the boy as a murderer. Throughout the negotiation, he remained closed-minded and badgered the other jurors for having a change of heart. He lost his temper more often than not and had no issue with insulting the other jurors just to get his own point across.
What is Juror No. 3’s style and approach with the other Juror members? Please explain and give examples as part of your response. Be specific.
Juror #3 remained very combative and defensive with the other jurors. His estranged relationship with his own son seemed to be the root of his abrasive behavior. His personal pain and suffering fueled his argumentative approach and biased style. With much contempt towards the defendant, Juror #3 refused to view the case in any other light. Much like some of the other jurors, he equated the boy’s socioeconomical status to his ability of committing the crime. He even bullied juror #5 in a sense after he revealed that he has also been raised in a terrible neighborhood. After the foreman revealed the results of the blind ballot, he automatically jumped down juror #5’s throat for changing his vote. He embodied absolutely zero interpersonal tact even after juror #9 revealed to him that he was the one to actually change his vote. Juror #8 referred to him as a “public avenger” because he made it his own personal agenda to get the people, in which he deemed unworthy, off of the streets and behind bars.
Towards the end of the movie, when there were only three (3) jurors remaining that were voting guilty, what role did juror No. 3 play in changing the vote position of the last three jurors. Explain the incident, circumstances and the influence that juror no. 3 had on these three (3) jurors to change their mind.
Juror #3 played a major role in changing the vote position of the last three jurors towards the end of the movie. While speculating the stab wound, Juror #3 demonstrated how he would stab a man that was taller than him. With all of his outrageous, the remaining jurors stood up in fear of Juror #3 actually harming #8. As the deliberation continued, the other jurors expressed why they changed their minds. Juror #3 continued to remain combative. When questioned as to why he felt so strongly about the boy’s guilt, he had absolutely no leg to stand on. Even after Juror #8 proved how the evidence in the case appeared to be all subjective, juror #3 was unable to effectively counter his claims. He described the woman’s testimony as the most critical piece of evidence. He even went as far as telling the jurors to throw out any other evidence. In his opinion, the woman’s testimony was unshakable. He other jurors noticed how much of a personal contest that Juror #3 made the case. The jurors began to realize that his decision to charge the boy was based more on personal motives than actual merit. The jurors began to get fed up with his yelling and belligerent behavior. Juror #3 could never give a real reason as to why he thought the boy was guilty. He was more concerned about winning than being logical. Out of desperation, Juror #3 even suggested that they give a verdict of being a hung jury.
The final straw was when he jurors found possible faultiness in the woman’s testimony. Juror #3 contradicted himself when he stated, “well what about all of the other evidence!!” Prior to that, he stated that no other evidence was required. The only thing that he could state was he could vote guilty because it was his right. By the end of his rant, it was apparent that he was condemning the boy for the discord between him and his own son. He wanted the defendant to pay for the pain that he was suffering in his own relationship. As he ripped up the photo in his billfold, he could no longer hide behind his mask. He changed his vote to not guilty because he knew that his actions were illogical and immoral.References
Fisher, R., & William, U. (2012). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. Second Edition. Penguin.
Fonda, H., Rose, R. (Producers), & Lumet, S. (Director). (1957). 12 Angry Men [Motion Picture]. United States.
Latz, M. (2011). Are They Irrational or Are They Faking It? Negotiating a Business Deal with an Irrational Party. Orlando Business Journal.
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders , D. (2015). Negotiation (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Prossack, A. (2018). The Benefits of Everyday Negotiations. Forbes Magazine.
Zohar, L. (2015). The Art of Negotiation” Leadership Skills Required for Negotiation in Time of Crisis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 209(3): 540-48