12 angry men

1. What differences in values and beliefs could you see demonstrated in this film and how did this influence the decisions which were made? Give at least three examples

I saw values and beliefs from one extreme to the other.

Example 1 –

It was automatically assumed, by juror 10, that because the defendant lived in the ‘slums’ he was violent and guilty. His personal beliefs affected his vote instead of the facts and evidence. He seem to value social status and beliefs more than the truth.

Example 2 –

Juror 3 made reference to his own son and how he has not seen him in 3 years. When he voted, he seems to vote about his own personal life and how his son was no good, run away. He believed that it was ok to beat children into submission and that all kids are rotten and no good. This seems to show a lack of respect for other humans. He values the authoritarian parenting style.

Example 3 –

Juror 4 had very high values and beliefs regarding the law and following the law. His high regard of the law meant that he did not question the supposed facts as they were presented he assumed that what had been stated was factual without question thus influencing his decision to vote without questioning the facts.

2. What power play could you see i.e. how did people exercise power and influence others? Give at least four examples. (please use Falbo's Power Strategies as a guide for your response)

Example 1 – Assertion
This power strategy was used by one juror who very forcefully attempted to use intimidation tactics to get the other jurors to agree to his way of thinking. He was instigating fights, belittling them when their opinions differed from his own and used his own personal experience with his son as justification for his opinion and actions.

Example 2 – Evasion
This strategy was used by juror 5. He avoided answering questions when asked and avoided giving his opinion when asked the reason for his vote and only later joined in the discussion when his emotions came into play as he felt the other jury members would disapprove of his background and judge him the same as the defendant in the movie and therefore chose to pass when it was his turn in the discussion and only later gave voice to his views.

Example 3 – Persuasion
The foreman and most other jury members attempt to use persuasion on the juror 8 who votes not guilty. You can see they try to persuade him that he was confused and needed convincing that he was wrong and the other jury members were all right. Even juror 8 tries to use persuasion (amongst other power plays) to change their mind from a vote of guilty to non-guilty. Example 4 - Persistence
You see persistence being used by juror 8 and eventually juror 9 and so on by them not giving in to the peer pressure. Juror 8 is persistent from the start that he is not sure if the accused is guilty or not and then you see juror 9 persuaded to the same argument. You also see persistence being used by juror 10, when he persistently repeats the facts of the case and challenges others to vote with only the facts they have.

3. What were positive and negative aspects of the foreman’s facilitation strategies?

POSITIVE –
Some of the positive strategies I saw being used were the fact that the foreman explained why they were all there and made sure that everyone was present when in discussion. Juror 9 was late to the meeting and he waited before starting. Also later on in the film, jurors leave to go to the toilet and he made sure to hold/break the meeting so nothing was said without everyone present. It was a good set out to the meeting with having all jurors sitting in the order they were numbered. This meant that no one had an option of where they were sitting and all personalities were split and mixed. Going around the table and asking all jurors what they thought was also a good way for everyone to be heard. It was also good that everyone was given the opportunity from the start to vote and see what they all thought. A juror gave him this idea which initially showed that he was open to their ideas.

Negative –
First thing he says is that it’s all up to the group and he isn’t going to make any rules. This set a president that they could do what they wanted. When trying to keep the group on track the foreman was challenged and told he was acting like a kid, at this time the foreman became visibly agitated and was unaware that other jury members had lost interest and were walking around the room. This happened regularly and was had to keep track of who was talking and who had not had a chance to speak. The foreman also failed to intervene when juror 10 and juror 3 spoke down to people. He joined in with a game at one stage instead of taking charge of the room. The foreman implied that the juror who voted not guilty was confused, he also failed to return to ask the juror 2 who passed on answering after the others had spoken when going round the table. Juror 4 pointed out that it was customary for a preliminary vote, this indicated that the foreman may not have known the rules for a jury.

3. What strategies would you put in place to effectively manage the conflict in this group?

Being that it was a very passionate group of jurors, I believe an agenda with group rules would need to be established, so everyone was on the same page as to who was facilitating, what the rules where to speaking over others, and that everyone’s opinion was valid and not to be told that they were wrong when it came to the discussions/debates. I would also include consequences to breaking the rules and their actions. I would have also made sure that everyone was aware of the terms of being there ie: The law states we must do such n such as a jury of peers.

4. Using Tuckman’s sequential stage model, (i.e. forming, storming, norming, performing and mourning) Describe to what extent this group went through Tuckman’s stages and provide examples of each stage as demonstrated in the film.

Forming – This is the first stage to occur as the group is formed, the foreman appointed himself the facilitator and barely any introductions were made. The jurors were courteous and avoided conflict at this stage discussing mundane topics such as the weather, health and employment. During this stage, the foreman made it clear why they were there. He took a basic vote to form a starting point for where they all stood.

Storming – This phase relates to conflict. The conflict that arose within the group and the power plays that followed. When juror 8 voted not guilty and the other eleven voted guilty conflict exploded within the group. Everyone wanted to be right and convince him to change his mind and all the personalities really started to come out. Juror 7, 3 and 10 really came out loud and almost bullying like behaviour. As the jurors changed their minds you see how angry people get and all almost like all control is lost. The men became frustrated as they just wanted to get it over and done with and get on with their lives. Another example of this would be when juror 10 called the foreman a kid and challenged his role as facilitator.

Norming – During this phase some of the jury members started to focus more on the reasons they were there at this time and work out how to complete the task before them, the conflict was still there, however you could see it had changed and was no longer a bullying style of argument and was more on a ‘let’s work together’ style of disagreement. There was less time for conflict. Alliances start to form within the group and this was clear when one of the jury members stuck up for juror 9 and how he was spoken to with no respect of his age.

Performing – The performing stage was evident with the shared purpose of the group in this movie. All members had a sense of belonging as a unanimous verdict had to be reached. The foreman changed the way in which members voted, going from a show of hands to a silent vote in an attempt to move the group forward. You also notice most of the jurors coming together with the facts and the lack of information. Quieter jurors started talking up at this stage. Juror 2 and 6 started to speak up more about what they actually thought. Reasonable doubt was created at this stage. This stage was really seen well when jurors had healthy debates over what they believed to be fact and whether information or facts could be interpreted another way.

Mourning – During the morning stage the members of the jury started to lean more towards an innocent verdict. Juror 3 and 10 became very verbal and loud at the other jurors. More and more jurors started to change their votes and talk about the witness’s glasses, the neighbour who had to walk far in 15 seconds, and the sound of the train. New behaviours were seen such as the argumentiveness of juror 3 and how he was making it all a competition. The emotional breakdown of juror 3 and the destruction of his family photograph together with his change of vote and at the conclusion of the movie the introduction of the aged man to the man who stood alone on his innocent vote at the beginning of the movie all point to the mourning stage of the lifecycle.

5. Identify one juror and discuss how the stages of change model relates to his experiences, as part of his group experience in the film.

Juror 5 appeared happy to sit on the fence for majority of the jury discussions. When it was his turn to speak he was quiet and passed on. I feel he went through the stages of change model in the following way:

Pre-contemplation – This part of the cycle, for juror 5, would have been before he turned up to court for the case. I don’t believe we would have seen any of this in the film.

Contemplation – this stage would have started as soon as he was at court and hearing all the evidence presented to him by the lawyers. When the jury adjourned he was still contemplating all the evidence and was still to make a decision. I feel he probably didn’t say anything when he was asked his thoughts as he was sitting on the fence and didn’t quite know what he was thinking.

Preparation – As discussions moved around the table, juror 5 seemed like he was prepared to speak out about his background and his views on the case, however due to previous comments, it seems like he decided to pass on his turn to comment.

Action – Juror 5 showed action when he finally spoke out about his background in the slums due to the juror 4 stereotyping and calling all people from the area trash and a menace to society. Juror 5 then became more active in the conversations and debates. He became more involved in the process, with his knowledge of knife fights how some of the testimony could be incorrect.

Maintenance – Juror 5 maintained his vote, even when a silent ballot was held by the jury however he relapsed into contemplation again when he decided that the evidence was disputable. Once he had made his mind up, he went back to action to change his vote to not guilty, which is where he finished.