Nisha Crittenden

Professor Jim Phillip's

Reaction Paper #4

12 Angry Men

This story is a movie that ages well considering it came out in 1957. This movie was a

fantastic showcase of a large group negotiation. It was complicated and really showed an

interesting side of a court case that you do not see. The movie in particular was about 12 jurors

going over the trial of an 18-year-old boy who was accused of stabbing his father. Now, this

boy’s life is on the line and is up to the jury to decide his fate by finding if he is guilty or not guilty

of premeditated murder. During this court negotiation, it goes over different techniques and how

complex group negotiations can be especially in a court scenario.

In the first part of the movie, the 12 men seem to be calm and collected, only ready to

settle a vote on the case and leave. However, this vote needs to be 12 to nothing either way.

Once they enter the room, they tend to roam around Schmoozing with one another. Finding out

other interests to pass the time and get a better understanding of these other men. Some talked

about baseball another spoke about the economic market. I think some may have used this as a

technique and others did so to pass time. All in all, lots of testosterone in a small room.

Then once the Foreman, kind of like the mediator, got the men to settle around a table.

They did a vote from the start, on who believed if he was guilty or not guilty. All the men but one

voted guilty. This one-man was still not convinced and wanted to further discuss this case

before making a verdict on a man’s life. The other men were shocked and annoyed but went

along. This was good, however, because now a real negotiation was beginning on whether to

send a young child to the electric chair. 11 men now had to convince and argue why they chose

he was guilty. This is a great technique because now each person could make a point and it

made them rethink a possibly irrational choice.

 The one juror who believed the man’s innocent brought in a knife similar to the weapon

used to prove it wasn't, the next point he brought up possible misinterpretations of the witness,

and again motives. At first, people got distracted and lost focus by doodles and playing childish

games. They were not taking it seriously. Until a 2nd vote was taken and the older juror in the

room decided to change his vote due to the valid points the lone man was making. The

gentleman was giving reasons for doubt. This continued throughout the movie. There were

different arguments over the witness’s statements, the defense attorney being ignorant, brought

in evidence, questioning memory, and they even did reenactments over testimonies. For

example, the man old limp man who says he went to the door in 15 seconds and the angle of

the knife during the stabbing.

Each moment the gentleman brought up reasonable points of how he may not be difficult

people would change their vote and at the same time this became a heated matter, hence it

being called 12 angry men. This argument happened to bring up people's personal lives and

characteristics. Many times, they would call them out ok it. At times in a hurtful, unethical way

and other times they kept then accountable, and ethical. Throughout the heated moments, they

used techniques for cooling down during a heated negotiation by taking breaks when needed to

reset and give people time to reconsider. Which was probably beneficial for some who needed

that break to rethink about their unconscious decision.

At the very end though the back and forth arguments, agreements, disagreements,

threats, ideas, assumptions, and the little details in between lead to a completely new vote of 11

not guilty and 1 vote guilty. This last man was relentless at the end which you could assume

was due to the fact this case hit a personal note. Emotions can sometimes affect negotiations

as stated in the textbook. Then the man finally realized after all the fighting against for his

personal standpoint and emotion was leading him astray, he finally decided he needed to

change his vote and do what was ethically right.

 Overall, this movie portrayed group negotiations so perfectly and how even good

negotiation tactics can save lives. At the end of the movie, I learned about this type of

negotiation, understanding of juror stress, what reasonable doubt is, the ethics portion of

negotiations, and when to not give up on something you believe in. I highly recommend it to

others.