The other jurors neglected the details in the story and that is what made Juror 8 stand out from the rest. He was able to use critical thinking and analyze the details that were over looked. With that being said, that is where the other jurors lacked in critical thinking. They over-looked the details, which never goes great with critical thinking. One cannot assume and utilize critical thinking.
Fonda is constantly in a conflict between jurors three and ten. Both of these jurors had stereotypes and were close-minded to the possibly of the defendant not being guilty. Juror number three was the hardest to convince, he was very aggressive and argumentative to his case, but was also stereotyping the boy because it reminded him of his son. Jurors, three and ten, had a controlling style of conflict, they use bullying when other members gave input against their opinion. However, members like the old man, juror nine, were more open minded and interested in what Fonda had to say.
The willingness of the other jurors to go along with this is yet again an example of obedience, compliance and conformity. I list these concepts together because the mechanism at play varies from person to person. Some go along with the group because they are not very assertive, and some are obeying because they want the entire ordeal over with as soon as possible. When the jurors start to make their cases we see that some of the jurors have concrete logical reasons for their vote and some of them were just going along with the group. The nay-sayer starts to use the central route of persuasion with some very logical counters to the other’s arguments.
Coco Woods Kaplan University CM 206 According to the video, no it does not seem like Alan is listening. I say this because when Gretchen was telling him that she could spit stuff out fast but it wouldn’t be quality and when the other employee was trying to explain to him about his son, he didn’t want to hear it. He could have given them some type of response to their questions and still kept handling the situation at hand and not have had to deal with their personal issues. Even though being an employer you have to listen to your employers so that you can understand them because at the end of the day, they do have a life outside of work. It seems to me that Alan does not like this part of his job very much and that the employees
Collectively the 11 jurors question him as to why he voted guilty. Many jurors have personal prejudice and they are not willing to accept that the boy is not guilty. However, the juror who votes not guilty in the beginning uses role-play as well as assumptions that could be made to convince the rest. One of the jurors uses facts like the lady witnessed the boy killing the father. However, later the old man convinces him with his important
George speaks on behalf of Lennie. “Why don’t you let him answer?” In this scene George shows that he cares about Lennie and therefore speaks on behalf of him. He knows that if Lennie talks then they might not get the job but if he works before he hears him talk, then they are set. He admits to the boss that he isn’t “bright,” this shows that George is honest to the boss and not over exaggerating Lennie’s intelligence. George is a character who doesn’t take advantage of Lennie’s misfortune.
He then asked Jim to set up a session with just Serena and himself so he could tell Jim his side of the story. Jim called him and Serena’s mom separately, and said that the next meeting would have to be with both adults and no child because the reason for treatment was so far removed from the nonsense that was going on. Jim felt he was being ineffective because of the difficult place they put him in. It is not an ethical violation to tape a session, but in this case it was an ethical concern because of what it was being used for. Serena’s father wanted to use it in court against her mother for personal gain.
It was almost like take my life I will take yours. If it damaged the family name it was considered waste and should be taken out if it couldn’t be handled. No emotional feelings involved. I asked myself how feelings were taken out of the equation and why men can do this so easy now but struggle with it later. The structure of the mob and the extreme loyalty that everyone felt to the man next to them because they felt they were family.
In Primal Fear, Aaron Stampler has been given a label as insane, in order to convince his defense lawyer, Martin Vale, that he is as innocent as he appears. The power between Stampler’s multiple personalities proves that even the best lawyers lose the toughest of cases. Throughout the story, we are made to believe that Martin Vale believes Aaron’s story. The evidence clearly shows that Stampler is guilty right from the get go. With that evidence, we, as the audience,
The vote changed 11 not guilty to 1 guilty. That one standing man was the main juror up for sending the boy to the chair. The man had a bad experience and a kind of hate towards young kids because he once had a boy who walked out on him. However by everyone bringing all the attention towards him the man eventually tried to make a point and stay with his guilty vote, but soon enough he broke down and cried. As he cried, he yelled out not guilty.