Vote Many Of The Juror's Views example essay topic

12 Angry Men During the trial of a man accused of his father's murder, a single juror takes a stand against the guilty verdict voted by the others as a result of their preconceptions and prejudices. Thus, it is up to the courage of juror number eight to convince the other member of the committee to determine a fair and correct outcome. Many of the skills we have learned in Business Communications were used to change the vote of the other jurors. Each of the jurors is portrayed to have different and conflicting viewpoints. Below is a brief description of each of the individual jurors.

Each of their specific personalities led to the conflicts and negotiations throughout the movie. If not for each of their personalities, not only would we not have a movie, but the final conclusion of the movie would have been different. Juror #1 – a simple man who clearly does not understand the full complexity of the task that lies before him but is trying to do everything not to let anyone else find this out. He appears at ease only once during the film – when he talks about football. He has the misfortune to be selected foreman of the jury – a task he clearly does not relish. Juror #2 – a small, quite man, clearly unaccustomed to giving his own opinion much less to expecting his views to be of any importance.

Apparently he finds solace in his job – he is an accountant. Juror #3 – probably the most complex personality in the film. Starts off like a pleasant self-made successful businessman, he analyses the case impartially, explains his arguments well and is reasonably self-assured. As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case.

He also starts to show some signs of slight mental instability. Wonderfully played by Lee J. Cobb – this is the character you remember after the film is over. Juror #4 – self assured, slightly arrogant stockbroker. Obviously considers himself more intelligent than anyone else in the room, he approaches the case with cool heartless logic but (as one of the jurors says – "this is not an exact science') he does not take into account the feelings, the passions, the characters of the people involved in the case. He is conspicuous by the fact that he is the only juror that does not take his jacket off (it is a very hot day).

Juror #5 – here is a man under great emotional stress. He comes from the same social background as the accused boy – with who he almost unwillingly seems to identify with. Paradoxically this appears one of the main reasons for him voting guilty – he does not want compassion to influence him – so ironically it does. Juror #6 – a simple man, quite readily admitting that everyone in the room is better qualified than he is to make decisions and offer explanations. But he really wants to see justice done and it worries him that he might make a mistake. Juror #7 – the only one that really has no opinion on this case.

Literally throughout the film his thoughts are never on the case – he talks of baseball, of the heat, of fixing the fan but the only reason he has for voting this way or that is to speed things up a bit so he might be out of the jury room as soon as possible. Not an evil man he just has no sense of morality whatsoever – he can tell right from wrong but does not seem to think it's worth the bother. Juror #8- a caring man, has put more thought into the case than any of the other jurors. He tries to do his best even in the face of seemingly impossible odds.

Juror #9 – a wise old man with his great life experience has quite a unique way of looking at the case. Juror #10 – the most horrifying character in the film. Votes guilty and does not even try to hide the fact that he does so only because of the boy's social background. The tragedy comes from the fact that his own social position is only a cut above the boy's – which makes him all the more eager to accentuate the difference.

Juror #11 – an immigrant watchmaker, careful methodical man, well mannered and soft spoken. respects the right of people to have different opinion to his – and is willing to look at both sides of the problem. Loses his temper only once – horrified by the complete indifference of juror #7. Juror #12 – a young business type – perhaps he has his own opinions – but is careful to hide them. What he has learnt out of life seems to be that intelligence is equal with agreeing with what the majority of people think. In the beginning of the movie, each of the jurors cast their vote on preconceived notions.

However, it is through the caring judgment of juror 8 that makes everyone else reconsider their votes. He presents his point of view in a calm, clear, concise manner that provides reason and thought. Unlike all the other jurors, he does not judge the boy strictly by what appears to be obvious. He takes the time to determine the motives, and other possibilities. He presents different viewpoints that none of the other jurors ever considered. His biggest obstacle was to overcome such strong assumptions the other jurors had made.

It was extremely difficult to break through the prejudice and assumptions that many people had strongly set in their minds. There were several factors that made reaching the consensus difficult. As stated above, overcoming prejudice and assumptions were one of the many obstacles. Another factor being that the biased evidence presented in the court was so convincing. Facing so many people with similar views was difficult and required courage.

The fact that many of the jurors wanted to go home and not take the time to talk about the case was another problem. The people seemed more concerned about their personal lives than the life of this young boy. All these obstacles made swaying the decision of the group exceedingly difficult. The kind of people need to reach a consensus are those who are open minded. People who are not afraid to change their opinion and negotiate will be able to come to a decision. Stubborn, obstinate people will stand to their original belief regardless if the decision is correct.

Many people will avoid making the decisions by arguing, insulting, denying, withdrawing, interrupting, and even having a sense of humor to derail the topics. These characteristics can all lead to a meeting where the final decision is difficult to conclude. If the group had decided to take a vote many of the juror's views would not have presented their true feelings. They would merely go along with the other juror's viewpoints in fear they would get made at a vote different form theirs. I believe that all the talking and negotiating was important because it present different viewpoints that had not previously been considered. Although the voting would have been much faster, it would not have been a fair evaluation and conclusion for the suspect.

Time and effort was put into the decision, and thus the right decision was made.