12 Angry Men: Prejudice, Past Experiences, and Justice - Essay Sample

Introduction

In the movie, “12 angry Men” represent how the group reaches a decision and what influences the team (13Youtoo, 2012). The opening statements were informed by prejudice and set a precedent for the juries who were coming in at the time. The eleven men moved to make conclusions by their past experiences, bigotry, and short-sightedness. They are challenged by one jury who held himself and his peers to higher levels of justice. Instead, he called upon the members to give a due process to the marginalized members of the society.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The decision-making process influenced by emotion, personalities, background, and process, as evident from the movie. Emotionally, the 8th Juror invokes the mercy and humanity of his colleagues into giving a verdict that would help the man. He says that the man had been kicked around by life and that the suspect had terrible sixteen years. All those had nothing to do with the decision, but when emotions are attached to decision making, the impact it negatively. Personalities of decision-makers can influence positively or negatively the outcome. The right mix of characters in a team decision making increases productivity and quality of decision achieved. Although the eleven jurors gave the same verdict on bases of their personalities, the 8th Juror brought a different perspective. Also, a sense of entitlement, as evident in the tenth Juror, has a personality that he always attacks the defenders labeling them as one of them from the start. Such characters influence how decisions made. The process of decision making seemed natural and straight forward because the jury had already a formed opinion from the judge that they believed the suspect was guilty. After all, they were born such. From the third Juror’s experience of his animosity between himself and son, he felt that it was out rightly possible they and the suspect did it.

Groups in Conflict

Emotional tagging is an unconscious process that helps in assessing a situation that seems similar to the present one and access the emotions attached to them. From the movie, for instance, the third Juror has had a foul relationship with his son. In the case, he was the last one to change his mind when he realized he was projecting his feelings. Pattern recognition is an approach of decision making that leads to the formation of a particular outcome. In the movie, the second Juror takes lots of time to feel comfortable enough to engage in the discussion.

Affective conflict refers to individual-oriented disagreement coming up from personal disaffection. From the movie, the fifth Juror having grown in slums like the suspect, he is angered by sentiments given by the tenth Juror, who called them “trash” (13Youtoo’ 2012). Impacts of personalities refer to the influence that one’s traits have on decision making. At the start of the movie, the nature of the judge sets the stage for what the Juror came to discuss. A piecemeal perspective is an approach that propagates for the stepwise method of the decision or a problem. From the movie, the fourth and ninth Juror has held the belief that a decision out to be arrived at, following a precise step by step approach rather than a deliberate outcome conclusion.

Free for all in decision making is an uncontrolled/structured approach where participants casually get things done without much thinking. For instance, the seventh jury wishes that the deliberation gets over before his ball game could start. Advocacy is the act of speaking on behalf of, in support of a person or relate to one’s situation. The fifth Juror describes with slum life, and that makes him agitated and picks a quarrel with the tenth Juror for terming slum person trash, thus interfering with how one decides on such matter.

The Juror adopts candor as a way to have an honest and open discussion that saw the anticipated short meeting turn out to a mature process of offering justice. Openness comes into play when the fourth Juror recognizes that his decisions based on his past similar family experience. Dialogue is an essential element that Juror adopted to give all the sides to present their case, through discussion, more perspectives, and the fair conclusion reached. The cognitive conflict was a recipe for a successful session in court. Acceptance and adoption of the new knowledge opposed to their previous experiences saw the juror resolve to make sound conclusions. An inquiry is what the fourth Juror employed all along to arrive at a decision. He kept consulting facts and across the member to ensure the right choice.

Multiple alternatives refer to diverse perspectives through which a decision can view. The importance of the approach allows decision makers to explore various alternative and opt for the best. Assumption testing is the evaluation of presumed outcomes. The plan ensures that one determines if the right conclusion can be drawn. Well defined criteria, in decision making, the term refers to the decision process, which not bias but conclusive. It is crucial because it guarantees the authenticity and reliability of the outcome of a decision. Dissent and debate refer to formal deliberation, where parties can openly disagree on matters. The disagreement in debates brings a different perspective to the discussion, which makes it easier to explore alternatives before a decision is made.

Hidden Traps of Decision Making

Anchoring in decision making happens when parties use the first piece of data to make a subsequent judgment. From the movie, jurors retreated aggressively to convince the eighth Juror to change his mind to conform to the initial statements that the judge shared with them. Status quo refers to unconscious bias by people into wanting things to remain the same (Hammond, Keeney & Raiffa, 1998). From the movie, the judge believed that “they were born that way,” hence concluding that the suspect was guilty of the homicide. The sunk cost is a mental shortcut that faces a person who invests their time and emotions in a losing endeavor. From a personal perspective, I have believed that my contributions towards individual decisions are of no value as long as I engage with persons more knowledgeable than me. Confirming evidence is a trap that makes us sought information in support of preexisting predilection and hence discount contrary opinion. The tenth juror holds-on that slum background can never guarantee a better and reliable life afterward rather than trash. Framing is a trap that comes with how a question or situation is first presented. Before the case, the judge had already placed judgment on the suspect and thus informed the reaction of jurors who thought it was a ratification exercise.

Overconfidence refers to being particular about the outcome, hence compromising a decision to mirror such findings. Prudence trap in decision making happens when parties take-up a choice for the sake of being safe. For the Juror thought they had come for a short meeting because the judge had already given the verdict. Recallability is a trap whereby a decision can be compromised because of our exaggerated or underrated imaginations about a particular activity. From the movie, both the fourth and eighth Jurors felt that they had a similar knife to the one the boy perceived to have used against his father.

References

Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1998). The hidden traps in decision making. Harvard business review, 76(5), 47-58. https://hbr.org/1998/09/the-hidden-traps-in-decision-making-2

13Youtoo (7 June 2012) 12 Angry Men (Video). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngbEpZ0tTjI&t=109s