Twelve Angry Men Essay Based on the 1957 Film

Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date due:
Twelve Angry Men
The gripping drama, 12 angry men, brings twelve American jurors who are confined to a jury room on a hot summer day to determine the fate of an 18-year-old Hispanic defendant. The judge reminds the jurors that they must decide on a unanimous vote whichever the side they pick. Should the jury hold a "reasonable doubt " stance, then the verdict should be not guilty but should they decide on the alternative then the defendant will be sentenced to death. Eleven of the twelve jurors initially thought that the presented case was "open and shut" and need not a lengthy dialogue. The majority were for the option of quickly voting for conviction of the defendant. The eleven jurors believed that the young Puerto Rican with a proven criminal record and living in the slums all led to killing his father. The sole initial protagonist was juror number eight votes not guilty as the deliberations begin. As the case proceeds, juror number eight slowly progresses from a vague communication standpoint and eases his way refuting the other jurors’ arguments about the case. Juror number eight, Henry Fonda sought to instill the virtue that the defendant is innocent until proved guilty.
Davis was the first lone dissenter that pointed out the possibility of doubt. Davis took into context the importance of a life and took a reasonable and responsible perspective into acknowledging that the boy’s life could not be decided in five minutes. Gradually he changes the mindset of each juror, which seemed incredibly hard at first. He challenges them into their way of thinking and prejudice always reminding them of the possibility of doubt. Not forgetting the evidence provided for the case Davis critically considered each piece of evidence thrown at him by the other jurors during the debate and uses them to make them (jurors) see reasonable doubt. What made him appeal to the other jurors is the fact that he used reason, logic, and facts in presenting his arguments. He never was intimidated by the other jurors or got personally involved in the matters of the case. Most of all his drew his power of persuasion from how much he had understudied the other jurors. It is evident that he took his time to understand the personality and background of each juror and used it for making alliances in the room. Juror number eight was an experienced professional who his job almost perfectly.
The frame that the negotiator chooses to base his or her claims can be very critical in case. Recent studies have shown that during critical moments the parties to a negotiation tend to judge each other’s personality, authority, and trustworthiness. Davis spoke softly, fully aware of this fact and uses it to discredit the other jurors by making them judge each other. Juror eight attacks the groups’ constraints of time and information by allowing his fellow jurors to express themselves, evident from juror 10’s entangle with juror 9.
Juror 10: "I don’t mind telling you this, mister. We do not owe him a thing. He got a fair trial, didn’t he? What do you think that trial cost? He is lucky he got it. You know what I mean. Now look, we’re all grown...