12 Angry Men Reflection

Answer the following questions:

What principles of effective communication did you see in 12 Angry Men?

Assertive is a person with high self-esteem, he does not need to raise his voice to be heard. He is,
ultimately, a person who defends his rights, in the case of the film, his opinion, but also respects the
positions of others. At one point he says, "I have put myself in the boy's place", that is, he has an
empathetic stance, he tries to understand his situation before making a decision that will be final: the
death sentence. In the razor scene we see the debate between two of the characters, the one we have
analyzed and another. Both express their opinion, strongly defend their arguments, but both listen to
each other, pay attention to the opinion of the other.

Why did almost all the jurors initially vote the defendant guilty?

The first question that arises is why these twelve men are so "angry." And they are distressed. Anguish is
the general reaction to psychological aggression. And in general, we consider that anyone who argues
against our opinion is attacking us. But he wants a debate that allows him to eliminate the prejudices
that surround this case. The young man is Latino and has a criminal record.

If you were a juror, how would you have voted initially? Why?

Well, it's an unwise question after seeing the result. But I think he would have voted the same as jury 8,
because "a person is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven", that is, he would not have
prejudged.

Why does it matter that Juror Eight requested for a recount, but didn't take part in the vote?

Eleven jurors immediately vote for the defendant's guilt, but Juror Number 8 casts a dissenting vote. He
does so not because he believes in the defendant's innocence, but to promote discussion since the jury
is expected to affirm the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The entry of the word radically
changes the course of events.

When the jurors did another vote, why did another juror voted Not Guilty?

One issue to consider is how the assertive stance of the character we mentioned at the beginning is
creating followers, his leadership capacity, and his conducive attitude that, as "the old man" says, "this
man has faced us alone, he has tried to get support and I have given it… I want to hear more…”

How did that change the outcome of the discussion?

It is interesting to look at the jury that plucks up its courage and votes 'not guilty' at the beginning of the
deliberations. It does not do so because it considers that the defendant is innocent, but based on the
reasonable doubts that the case generates. Persistent and persuasive, he gradually gets the rest of the
members to reconsider and review their perspectives. Among his arguments was added a questioning of
the penal system for having assigned the unfortunate defendant a court-appointed lawyer, who was
annoyed at having been named in a case "without money, nor glory, nor almost many chances of
winning" -and that consequently essential to witnesses insufficiently.

What principles can you apply to your leadership?

This movie has made me see how important it is to have healthy discussions, in pursuit of objectives. It
made me see the importance of keeping prejudices away from debates. This is necessary when it comes
to exercising leadership, I see how this type of prejudice fights against reason, many times in stake
councils or in neighborhoods and how harmful they are.