Guilty In Twelve Angry Men

1445 Words6 Pages
Guilty or not guilty? This is the key question during the murder trial of the young boy, who accused of fatally stabbing his father. Jurors in the movie of Twelve Angry Men have their own way of defining the term “reasonable doubt.” Therefore, in this paper, I will analyze this movie from using a decision model, dialogue, advocacy and inquiry, and three Cs.
The movie of twelve Angry Men uses the rational decision model, which is a series of steps that decision makers should consider if their goal is maximizing the quality of their outcomes with a thorough analysis of alternatives. (Organizational Behavior). In more detail, decision makers are used to come up with a fact-based decision, and develop a desired solution. In the movie, Juror #8
…show more content…
Juror #8 is the first man to vote not guilty in the case, and they should revise their approach because there is reasonable doubt of the boy, which is the beginning of the conflict. Based on their personal ghosts and anger, impatience and prejudice, the rest of jurors is engaged in affective conflict. For example, Juror #3 has a personal feeling about the behavior of kids, and he is certain that the boy is guilty based on his own prejudice. He says, “I’ve got a kid…when he was fifteen, he hit me in the face…I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out.” (12 Angry Men). Therefore, he is biased towards all teenagers who rebel and who act tough because he is projecting his son’s behavior on the boy. Furthermore, he generalizes his personal experience and lets this prejudice impact his thinking about the slum kid. Then, Juror #8 is the first juror to bring up reasonable doubt, and he has the ability to make the jurors to revise the evidence. This shows his consideration of facts. Also, he is good at knowing when to end deliberation. In the movie, he makes a proposition that the other jurors can vote, and if all of them vote “not guilty,” he would not stand alone and would go along with their guilty verdict. They agree to this and vote by secret ballot, so the deliberation can continue. Overall, the impact of the jurors’ decision making process is that if they want to improve the effective decision-making capabilities, and it needs to move from a process of advocacy to one inquiry, and it requires to these three critical factors as well. (HBR,
Open Document