12 Angry Men: Review 3

In the blood line of 12 angry Men, they clarify that they had sit through sextet days of court listening to the fibre, and were right away ready to decide the verdict. After those sixsome days of hearing believed conclusive cause and no defense from the plaintiff, it seemed to be an aw are decision. When I researched on what exactly happens in the Jury Room it said The original motion of business in a board way of life is to select ace of the jurywomans as a foreman. He or she leads the discussion and tries to encourage every whizz to join in the discussion.Every juror should father input. The purpose of these deliberations is to have a robust, uninhibited discussion which testament lead to a calm, unbiased reasoning. With that be understood, it helped me comprehend and get much of a grasp on what the modality the jury room should have. As we saw in the ikon, the jurors entered the room and none of them seemed eager or looked like they had the motivation to sit at that place and converse. What makes matter worsened was the scorching heat with no nimbus conditioning.They were locked inside a sm in all room with 12 anformer(a)(prenominal) men one was sick, and almost all of them were smoking. Absolutely naught wanted to be on that point, so the climate is completely negative to begin with. modality is de bookd as the atmosphere or environment within a host and is experienced by all members of the group. It materializes and is wedge by communication and whoremaster each be supportive or defensive. The reference frame of mind is set by the pissed off baseball fan who tells everyone he has a game to get to and makes it clear that this skid has an unambiguous verdict.With this sort of nonverbal assumption he is showing in his decision, it provides chit to the jurors in the room that there is nothing significant to discuss. The only thing open is the point that the jurors have already do up their mind about the male child being b lood conscience-smitten without any discussion. To scoop the jurors meeting, they decided to take a take of how many feel the boy is guilty and how many do not. Fortunately for the boy being tried as guilty, there was one juror, Henry Fonda that had a level-headed doubt about the case and stood a stumblest the former(a)s.It wasnt that he had already a make a decision on the verdict it was that he felt he couldnt vote guilty and send a man to die until he at least talked about it. The climate in the room became exceptionally negative because they all thought they were going to be fitting to go home but Fonda time period them from doing so by not ballot guilty. One man wouldnt stop yelling and others were taking his side do the environment in the room a bit hostile. Fonda was willing to face the rib of eleven angry men.He challenged every juror to effectively tell him why they are voting guilty, which promoted deliberation. By standing up to all of the others, he gradually be gan to gain respect from some of the other jurors who were at a time ready to hear what he rattling had to say. Without being named the jury foreman, Fonda turned the tough juror room into a priggish and productive room. In my opinion, this was a fine demonstration of leadership. When they decided to take turns almost the table putting their twain cents in, Fonda sat there and listened.Instead of disputation for the sake of not guilty, he simply let the other jurors elaborate on some of the of import facts they had in the case, which often became major points of speculation. scantily by listening, Fonda was able to hear everyones arguments and the other jurors themselves started to second guess themselves because what they believed were base on wrongful facts. When they started discussing more and more about a particular fact or certain evidence, the smaller lucubrate became inconclusive. Without listening, none of what they had found out by speculating the facts, wouldnt have unf octogenarianed the way it did.It was from there, they started develop cohesiveness and the jurors started opening their minds and exploring all of the other possibilities. As they kept their discussions and expatiated on the facts that they can all relate to, clues about the case started to become clear. They started to listen to one another, realizing it was obligatory to hear each others incite, and they finally began to support each others views. This is a perfect interpreter of groupthink, which is where group members try to cut fling off on any sort of action by not evaluating, scrutinizing, or arguing with other peoples ideas.However, they had a conflict with one of the jurors. There was no intention throughout the entire movie that this was going to switch his vote because he had personal ties from a family feud he was portraying. He had told us that in the beginning of the movie that he got into a fist fight with his 16 year old son and hasnt seen him in two years. Once everyone was on the same page, convince this man to vote not guilty became the name of the gamehttp//www. alameda. courts. ca. gov/courts/jury/procedure. shtml