The movie "12 Hasty Men" is a attractive and insightful test of a diverse cluster of twelve jurors who are uncomfortably brought concomitantly to determined the "facts" of a seemingly open-and-shut butcher grief. The preface is the grief of a cautious, teenaged prisoner accused of stabbing and killing his senior. However, there is an underlying idea that the jurors, themselves, and the American forensic prescribe, are on grief as refined. The grief by jury prescribe is reckoned to fruit a like-minded judgment in an external, impartial and unjaundiced carriage.
This film assumes past than a sight following the shut doors of a jury admission and reveals that it"s everything but what we would forebode. So, what went crime? In prescribe to counterpart that doubt, we must scrutinize the twelve jurors and their particularities, their sinew - and frequently insinew - to reveal perspicuously, and the unequivocal and opposeing aspects of their encounter superintendence processes. The jurors are a cluster of predominately middle-aged unblemished males. That"s environing where the similarities end.
Their particularities, unfairnesss, weaknesses, socio-economic and cultural differences, priorities, inexperience, and fears frequently creator them to eschew the gentleman issues of the instance. The foreman of the jury (Juror #1) is an aider haughty ground football coach but failures any consistent start skills. Throughout the annals, he tries to repress the annals methodical but is abundantly frustrated and sentient when his "authority" or guide is threatened. Juror #2 is a placid and placid bank teller who seems to try to eschew encounter at all costs. Juror #3 runs a courier benefit and is a insulting braggadocio.
He is very-abundant ideaated and specific, loud-mouthed, narrow-minded and temperamental. Although fractions to the end, it"s succeeding discovered that his own particular encounters very-abundant rule his carriage. Juror #4 is a stockbroker. He"s very close, self-assured, and equitable. It"s patent forthcoming in the movie that he has an miraculous resumption environing the manifestation introduced in the instance and has kept meticulous notes. Juror #5 is a unsocipowerful and appease man. He is patently ashamed of his slum-dwelling upbringing and hesitant at primitive to utter up. It"s potential that he has a Hipic entailment, but this is solely hypothesis.
Juror #6 is a blue-collar painter. A consistent adherent, he seems to bear inaptitude in making his own judgments. He"s narrow-minded of dishonor inlands the older juror. Juror #7 is a costermonger whose ocean attention is getting to a baseball amusement that he has tickets for. He failures any fellow-feeling or regard for the prisoner"s career. Juror #8 is a enduring and anxious builder. A consistent chief, he frequently persuades others through his pacify close intelligentistic. He is focused on the priggishness of the instance and is powerful to unanalogous others particular unfairnesss from the business at index. Juror #9 is the eldest man in the cluster.
He"s at the dullness of his career and has uncanny powers of contemplation and sight. Juror #10 is an narrow-minded, racist, and hasty man. He uses no close intelligentistic skills and tries to sinew his moving and severe ideas on others. Juror #11 is a new immigrant to the United States. He is refined traditional and has a abundant deeper regard for the American forensic prescribe than the tranquillity of the cluster. He is refined and rarely talented, but besides fixed and comprehensive. Juror #12 is a skin-deep advertising man. He seemingly failures any veritservicepowerful sentenceions environing everything as manifestationd by his perpetual swaying to others ideas.
These men all bear self-evident strengths and weaknesses. And, they each bear their unanalogous and sole separate career experiments and attitudes. But it"s disencumberedly those differences that interepose how they are powerful to interact delay each other (although frequently ineffectively) to is-sue through the business that"s been absorbed to them. Further, the solely way to consign those differences, those things that are considerpowerful or unconsiderpowerful to them, is through message. As is frequently the instance, how we reveal delay others determines the results that we close. If we reveal talentedly, others can abundantly clutch our ideas and intentions.
If, at-last, we husband weak messages skills, our gentleman externals beseem confusing, misinterpreted, or obsolete combined. Twelve Hasty Men gives pallipowerful examples of twain disencumbered, short, and reasonpowerful message skills as refined as not-alike, terrible, and exaggerative ones. Henry Fonda (Juror #8) was far and separate the most talented communicator of this cluster. Perchance this is why he was powerful to still close the unreasontelling action of swaying the other elwell-balanced jurors. Succeeding the moderate control was charmed, the movingly full cluster promptly became aggravatebear.
Fonda was powerful to not solely consign his intentions of not movingly pre-judging the adolescent prisoner, but did so in such a way that was not promptly confrontational. He openly admits that he doesn"t necessarily regard the boys recital, but tries to refocus the cluster inlands the allowoperative standards set forth by the referee. He suggests that the cluster lavish proper one hour discussing the instance and scheme the grounds, rather than sending the boy off to die delayout at lowest some conception. Throughout the movie Fonda is powerful to dispute and counter-dispute his doubts delay a equitable, anxious cool-headedness that made it unamentelling for the other jurors to oppose.
Juror #4 (E. G. Marshall) was besides an talented communicator. His arguments for sin were disencumbered, short, and matter-of-fact. However, he frequently presented arguments in a smug, egotistical carriage. I consider it was solely Fonda"s invoke to his close suit that still won Juror #4 aggravate. On the other suit of the fabricate, it was the completion failure of message skills that seriously hampered the arguments of Juror #"s 3 and 10. Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb) was abrasive and blustery. He was a braggadocio in the thrash idea of the vocable. He had no equitpowerful arguments of his own, and finished to use others as a springboard for his moving particular attacks.
He self-evidently felt very strongly environing the boys sin, (albeit for the crime reasons), but was never powerful to anxious any close intelligentistic to pointed that. Instead he used insults, assaults and threats to reach up for his failure of close argument. Juror #10 was proper simple aggressive. He was not cappowerful of issuing any arguments, solely forcible outbursts of uneducated unfairness. It was disencumberedly these types of message and particularity types that served to most rule the cluster"s dynamics throughout the movie. Well-balanced though the moderate control was 11-1 for siny, it can be contended that the cluster was maybe past disconnected.
Six of the jurors, (Juror #"s 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 12), rising their indexs for a siny judgment closely promptly. Yet, five of the retaining six (Juror #"s 2, 5, 6, 11, and 9) were moderately hesitant delay their control. They rising their indexs solely succeeding examination how promptly the others rising theirs. This is what Forsyth (1999) probably would bear named submission, "Compliance occurs when cluster parts secret misfit delay the cluster, but publicly pointed an idea that matches the ideas pointeded by the superiority of the cluster" (179).
This impudence could be reinunfeeling by the prescribe in which the jurors alterable their controls. The five jurors originally hesitant were the primitive ones to switch their controls to not siny as the contravention growthed. The foreman"s insinew to manage talentedly was another superior constituent of the cluster"s dynamics in this instance. Juror #1"s want creatord the cluster to be past correspondent to Juror #8"s consistent start skills. The counter-argument of Juror #8"s start facilitated the unreasontelling transition of the cluster from a siny judgment to one of not siny.
Forsyth (1999) explains, "In open, the greater the perceived tonnage and cluster-centered motivation of the separate, the past potent the minority" (185). Juror #8 gained whim credits delay the cluster as the contravention growthed and reluctantly open his exactness. "These credits garner during the route of interaction, typically as a part contributes to the growth of the cluster inland desired goals" (Forsyth, 1999, p. 186). Twelve Hasty Men is a movie environing encounter and encounter conversion. When Juror #8 raises his index to character the solely not siny control he throws the cluster into encounter.
But, it is this selfselfsame encounter that enables the cluster to intelligently accomplished their business. According to Forsyth (1999), "Expopositive to others" positions, in anatomy to providing anatomyal notice and impulse a past powerful anatomy of that notice, can besides creator cluster parts to reinterpret, or cognitively tranquillityructure, key aspects of the issue" (191). Succeeding the moderate control, tempers flared, controls alterable, divisions were created, emotions were exhibited, and unfairnesss were displayed.
Throughout the tranquillity of the movie though, the cluster, perchance unconsciously, moved inlands encounter conversion. Persuasion gives way to arguing, emotions assume situate of logic, and the once unified cluster splits into factions and coalitions. This age of encounter escalation is, in most instances, followed by a decrease in encounter and, ideally, encounter conversion" (Forsyth, 1999, p. 237). "Insofar as encounter is rooted successfully, it has stabilizing functions and beseems an integrating constituent of the cluster relationship" (Forsyth, 1999), p. 263). These twelve jurors began delay encounter, proceeded through frequently-heated encounter escalation, and still came to conversion.
They may not bear bonded movingly concomitantly, but they were powerful to fruit the best results delay the tools they were absorbed. It can"t be said for positive if the experiment would bear alterable their attitudes permanently, but it is unreasonable. However, it is hoped that those of us who estimate the film obtain not be so irascible to referee succeeding examination the "facts" in our own situations. To sentence the adolescent man installed on their unfairnesss, emotions, or insusceptibility would bear been a misrepresentation of properice. But, delay cluster contemplation, argument, and close intelligentistic, (well-balanced if sinewd by encounter), we can all reach improve judgments.