12 Angry Men
The purpose of this paper is to provide an analysis of the movie "12 Angry Men" relative to conflict resolution. I will discuss how the character played by Henry Fonda was able to effectively use conflict resolution skills to bring the jury to their final verdict. I will also discuss some of the issues contributing to the climate of conflict in the jury room. Henry Fonda's character is an architect named Mr. Davis. He happens to be juror number 8. I will refer to this character from now on as "Fonda" for ease of writing and understanding. I have attached Appendix A listing the jurors in order of their juror number. This may help to better identify the jurors and references the order in which they voted not guilty. The group of jurors experiences the spectrum of the conflict continuum from difference to contention. Throughout their deliberation, they fluctuate between difference, disagreement, dissonance, controversy and contention. They, of course, never reach the far right of the continuum, which is war. The points on the continuum are reached at different times between different jurors and groups of jurors. This is based on their backgrounds and their assumptions and how these i
When the deliberation starts, many of the jurors just want to vote and get out of there. He got them to understand each other and to understand the defendant. Fonda took the effective approach through confrontation to raise questions and change perceptions. It is the hottest day of the year and the fan does not work at first. He was not dominating and he realized compromise would not bring a unanimous verdict. He continually pushed the jurors from casual and attentive listeners into empathic listeners. He immediately stated and clarified the goal of the group. He was not forceful enough in his delivery. Various prejudices pit juror against juror as well as their changing votes. He realized that negotiation is an ongoing process and continually adapted to the situation as it unfolded. For example, Juror #3 the messenger service owner, is wrestling with his own feelings about his estranged son while juror #10, the garage owner, is becoming aware of his prejudices toward the slum dwellers. Juror #10 finally realized he was prejudiced to slum dwellers, juror #7 realized he was prejudiced to foreigners and juror #3 realized in the end that he was letting his poor relationship with his son effect his decision. This occurred when Juror #10 goes on his tirade about slum people and the rest of the jurors leave the table to display their disgust. It is interesting that there is no conflict evident in the jury room until the first vote is taken. There is internal conflict within some of the jurors.
Common topics in this essay:
Resolution Fonda,
Basis Conflict,
Henry Fonda's,
Henry Fonda,
,
juror #10,
conflict resolution,
juror #3,
climate conflict,
fonda able,
realized prejudiced,
verdict fonda,
raise questions,
treated jurors,
able bring,
|
Acceptance Essays
