Twelve Angry Men Debrief Questions Essay

One of the characters in the story that plays a important role is the Foreman. The Foreman helps maintain between the jurors. The Foreman makes sure the jurors are acting in a organized manner according to the rules. In the Drama “Twelve Angry Men” page 100 paragraph 9 - 11 it states “ I was thinking we oughta sit in order, by jury number. Two, Three, Four and so on and so on, if thats ok with you gentlemen?” This evidence claims that the Foreman thinks in a democracy thinks that you should act in a organized manner. The Foreman thinks that in a democracy obeying the law is important and all must be on the same page when doing so. In the drama “Twelve Angry Men” page 102 paragraph 58 - 59 it states “ This has to be a twelve or nothing vote any way. Thats that law ok, are we all ready?” This evidence states that the Foreman takes democracies seriously, even though he is the reason that a boy might die he still acts calmly.

group of adults and students. At this meeting the group determined to publicize their objections

The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8 triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors. The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by the process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men end up reconciled, and justice is done.

In the play, 12 Angry Men, the vote was 11-1 in favor of a guilty verdict in the case being tried. The one juror stood his ground, explained his theory as to why a guilty verdict could not be delivered, and was unwavering in his stance. The jurors went around the table twice, and ended with everyone siding with the original juror. As the deliberations played out and jurors were questioned, some jurors were not able to justify their guilty verdict, merely stating “It just is”. This statement shows the effect of the groupthink mentality, especially since one juror was considerably vocal and angered by the time being spent on deliberations. The logical discussions the other jurors had with one another displayed a positive aspect

4) What were the tangible results? How were these results similar to and/or different from the intended results of a consensus organizing

Another communicational concept that was displayed amongst the group was leadership and power. The leadership approach that was used throughout the film was a democratic leadership style which “invited other members to share in decision making” (254). Since all had to come up with an agreement to one conclusion, all members had to represent their opinions on why the boy was innocent or guilty. All input was necessary and required to reach a consensus which is why there was no particular leader that influenced the group throughout. There were of their own decision with the influences of others around them. As far as power spreads amongst the group, several methods were examined throughout the film. One of the powers used was coercive power which “comes from the threat or actual imposition

This movie was great to see again and to experience all the different dynamics that were occurring amongst the 12 jurors. The time frame in which this movie takes place is not too different than what we experience today in our judicial system. The major differences today would be we do not discriminate based upon age, race or gender. All three of these factors would influence how the jurors would interact with one another and would eventually have a major impact on the final verdict. Juror 8 was so successful in convincing the other 11 jurors for two simple facts. He demonstrated assertiveness and use of reason. While his peers and the foreman fell into a group think mentality from the

It looks like they do not understand how to carry out their duties. For example, The Jury # 1 pronounced himself as a leader ,but does not lead a group, very passive one, on the opposite side, the Jury # 3 is very aggressive, and cannot obstruct the drama of his own life, the conflict with his own son from the case of a stranger. His emotions overflowed his awareness and take him away from reasonable solutions. Jury # 7 appears as a careless, selfish person interested only in a coming up baseball game. Almost all of them demonstrated a personal prejudice, as a Jury # 10, who truly believes, that some people just “born to be criminals”. It takes a lot of courtesy to Jury #8 to stand for the fair justice and speak up his mind against 11 other people, who truly believe the boy is guilty. He raised his voice for fair justice, he said “it is possible”, possible to make mistakes, and that before to send a person to the electric chair, jurors should be prudent, conscious and thoughtful. Being focused on reasonable doubt, he convicted other juries to question “the truth of evidence”. Now, working as a team, and recreating the chain of events, juries see the situation differently. One by one they realized, that context of the story could be different. The Juror’s # 5, who has a “ slam background “ helps to challenge the angle of the knife wound, and convicted Jury # 9 to change his

3. What were the group goals (Chapters 3/4)? Explain. (2-3 paragraph

After the second vote we found that only 10 of the 12 jurors found the teenager guilty. As the movie progresses it switches to a split decision between the juror members. Finally towards the end of the film it becomes a unanimous decision of finding the teenage boy not

It is important to work together, yet there is nothing wrong if no one can agree with each other we just need to understand one another. Respect is also important Joseph Sweeney was given a lot of disrespect by the other jurors in the beginning. Throughout the movie, he gained respect from a couple of the jurors. There were also a lot of other jurors who disrespected everyone in that room.

Even before the deliberation talks begin it is apparent most of the men are certain the boy is guilty. However, when the initial poll is taken Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) registers a shocking “not guilty” vote; Immediately the room is in an uproar. The rest of the jury resents the inconvenience of his decision. After questioning his sanity they hastily decide to humor the juror #8 (Henry Fonda) by agreeing to discuss the trial for one hour. Eventually, as the talks proceed juror #8 slowly undermines their confidence by saying that the murder weapon is widely available to anyone, and that the testimony of the key witness is suspect. Gradually they are won over by his arguments and even the most narrow minded of his fellow jurors hesitantly agrees with him. Their verdict is now a solid not guilty.

3) Then tell us what decision the group could have or should have made to change the outcome, based on avoiding groupthink.

3. Hugh Russel seemed to increase its legitimacy and power by developing personal relationships with other companies. Does this make sense to you as general strategy for powerless organizations? Use ideas from the chapter in your discussion.

3. Was the organizational structure at Eden McCallum appropriate? Do economic conditions factor into your answer?