Reaction Paper #4 - 12 Angry Men

Nisha Crittenden
Professor Jim Phillip's
Reaction Paper #4
12 Angry Men
This story is a movie that ages well considering it came out in 1957. This movie was a
fantastic showcase of a large group negotiation. It was complicated and really showed an
interesting side of a court case that you do not see. The movie in particular was about 12 jurors
going over the trial of an 18-year-old boy who was accused of stabbing his father. Now, this
boy’s life is on the line and is up to the jury to decide his fate by finding if he is guilty or not guilty
of premeditated murder. During this court negotiation, it goes over different techniques and how
complex group negotiations can be especially in a court scenario.
In the first part of the movie, the 12 men seem to be calm and collected, only ready to
settle a vote on the case and leave. However, this vote needs to be 12 to nothing either way.
Once they enter the room, they tend to roam around Schmoozing with one another. Finding out
other interests to pass the time and get a better understanding of these other men. Some talked
about baseball another spoke about the economic market. I think some may have used this as a
technique and others did so to pass time. All in all, lots of testosterone in a small room.
Then once the Foreman, kind of like the mediator, got the men to settle around a table.
They did a vote from the start, on who believed if he was guilty or not guilty. All the men but one
voted guilty. This one-man was still not convinced and wanted to further discuss this case
before making a verdict on a man’s life. The other men were shocked and annoyed but went
along. This was good, however, because now a real negotiation was beginning on whether to
send a young child to the electric chair. 11 men now had to convince and argue why they chose
he was guilty. This is a great technique because now each person could make a point and it
made them rethink a possibly irrational choice.

The one juror who believed the man’s innocent brought in a knife similar to the weapon
used to prove it wasn't, the next point he brought up possible misinterpretations of the witness,
and again motives. At first, people got distracted and lost focus by doodles and playing childish
games. They were not taking it seriously. Until a 2nd vote was taken and the older juror in the
room decided to change his vote due to the valid points the lone man was making. The
gentleman was giving reasons for doubt. This continued throughout the movie. There were
different arguments over the witness’s statements, the defense attorney being ignorant, brought
in evidence, questioning memory, and they even did reenactments over testimonies. For
example, the man old limp man who says he went to the door in 15 seconds and the angle of
the knife during the stabbing.
Each moment the gentleman brought up reasonable points of how he may not be difficult
people would change their vote and at the same time this became a heated matter, hence it
being called 12 angry men. This argument happened to bring up people's personal lives and
characteristics. Many times, they would call them out ok it. At times in a hurtful, unethical way
and other times they kept then accountable, and ethical. Throughout the heated moments, they
used techniques for cooling down during a heated negotiation by taking breaks when needed to
reset and give people time to reconsider. Which was probably beneficial for some who needed
that break to rethink about their unconscious decision.
At the very end though the back and forth arguments, agreements, disagreements,
threats, ideas, assumptions, and the little details in between lead to a completely new vote of 11
not guilty and 1 vote guilty. This last man was relentless at the end which you could assume
was due to the fact this case hit a personal note. Emotions can sometimes affect negotiations
as stated in the textbook. Then the man finally realized after all the fighting against for his
personal standpoint and emotion was leading him astray, he finally decided he needed to
change his vote and do what was ethically right.

Overall, this movie portrayed group negotiations so perfectly and how even good
negotiation tactics can save lives. At the end of the movie, I learned about this type of
negotiation, understanding of juror stress, what reasonable doubt is, the ethics portion of
negotiations, and when to not give up on something you believe in. I highly recommend it to
others.

Reaction Paper #4 - 12 Angry Men

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reaction Paper #4 - 12 Angry Men

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reaction Paper #4 - 12 Angry Men

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nisha Crittenden

Professor Jim Phillip's

complex group negotiations can be especially in a court scenario.

made them rethink a possibly irrational choice.

the knife during the stabbing.

that break to rethink about their unconscious decision.

change his vote and do what was ethically right.

You might also like