August 2016 – Communication in Public Settings

12 Angry Man

The main person who is suppose to set rules is Forman. It seems that he tries to guide the conversation and keep it in order, but does not work. The Juror who casts not guilty vote, has doubts regarding the 18 year old being guilty of murder, therefore he states and shows others the doubts regarding witnesses and boys lawyer.

There are no decision rules, each men votes for himself, whether its guilty or not guilty. It seems that they are slowly changing their vote from guilty to not guilty. I think the only rule in the beginning was for the man to vote the same. Once the juror voted not guilty, they were all angry, and each of them tried to push their ideas, vote to the one juror.

Juror who voted not guilty, had clear reasoning and evidence in favor of the boy. He was able to make other jurors see, that there should be reasonable doubt to vote guilty verdict.

Emotions are playing big role. Each of the jurors come with their own bag of experiences and prejudice towards other socioeconomic levels represented by each juror. Each of the jurors had different idea of why the boy was guilty. It seems that leadership in the beginning was foreman, and he was trying to guide all of them to vote specific vote. The juror who voted not guilty became leader, and even though he had all other jurors trying to convince him to change his view, in the end he slowly changed the view of other jurors for verdict not guilty. He did not scream, did not force anybody, he simply states the facts.

Self introduction

Hello my name is Joanna

I am Graduate nursing student, and I am working on my Nursing and Public Administration degree. I am at Baruch at this point my 4th semester. I am working for Healthfirst Insurance company, I am Fiels Nurse for MLTC long term care, program and I am assessing patients for services they need.

My professional ambitions are to finish this program, and become Nurse Leader. I have more ambitions to go in to teaching new Nurses but that requires more study, and my husband is fed up with me studying, plus I have to rest after the MPA.

Fun details: I have 3 sons- that’s a lot of fun, I am wife, mother, student, nurse. That’s a lot of hats to wear, and that is fun at times to handle everything.

12 Angry Men

I found it interesting that no one introduced themselves/no names were used throughout the film. Only at the end, when everyone parts ways do Jurors 8 & 9 introduce themselves to each other.

The rules for speaking and voting varied through the deliberation. Initially it was an orderly process, but once it was apparent that not everyone was in agreement with the “guilty” verdict, the organizational structure changed.

Although the foreman was for the most part guiding the deliberation, I thought that the true leader was Juror 8. He stood firm against 11 cranky, angry, indifferent, docile, inflexible men and presented his position in a calm and rational way. He used emotion (the fact that an 18 year old teenager was facing the death penalty) to engage and force the jury to ultimately evaluate the case carefully rather than making rushed judgments (which would’ve no doubt happened if Juror 8 hadn’t been a part of the deliberations).

In terms of the jury composition and prejudice, it’s clear throughout the deliberation that socioeconomic backgrounds play a major role in the thought process of each juror. Of course since this is the ’50’s we don’t have the benefit of observing the perspective of a non-white, non-male jury.

Self-Introduction

Hello everyone, my name is Erinda. This is my second semester at Baruch. I’m currently a coordinator in development/fundraising at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK). It’s been really interesting to learn more about the fundraising world, and while I understand that it’s an essential component for non-profits, I don’t see myself in fundraising long term. So I’m currently seeking other opportunities at MSK.

I was born in Albania, moving to the US as a teenager. My immigrant experiences have informed my worldview and I’m very passionate about issues concerning minorities and women.

I really enjoy watching British TV programming. Well, at least I used to, before starting the MPA program!

Self Introduction

Hello everyone, my name is Gustavo Castro and this is my first semester at Baruch. I completed my undergrad over at John Jay majoring in Public Administration and minoring in English. Currently, I work in the Admissions department in LaGuardia Community College. I have no idea what I would like to specialize my MPA in, but I am leaning towards the public management track.

Working in the Admissions department I see first hand how students try to navigate the maze that higher education can be, and that has made me rethink my professional aspirations. Perhaps I can focus my efforts to get earn a position within higher education where I can directly help students.

Fun fact about me: My dad, brother and I are intrinsically tied to the number 7. My father was born Sept 7th, and his first two born sons (my brother and I) were born on the 7th month of the year (July) on the 25th and 16th respectively, and both 1+6 and 2+5 add up to 7.

Self-Introduction

My name is D’anna (Dianna) Davydkina. My legal name has an apostrophe in it but I go by Dianna. This is my second semester in the MPA program here at Baruch College. I want to pursue the health care policy track. I received my Bachelors of Psychology from Hunter College in 2015. After obtaining my Bachelors I accepted a job as an IRB (Institutional Review Board) and Grants & Contracts Coordinator at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, NY. Currently I am a Grants Specialist at NYU Langone Medical Center, now one of the top 10 hospitals nationwide, as seen in U.S. News & World Report’s annual “Best Hospitals” ranking. I find that not a lot of people know what my job consists of especially those who are not in the health field. Working as a Grants Specialist I am responsible for advising faculty on, and aiding faculty in, applying for and obtaining government and or private grants. Grants are important for conducting research and without research doctors and therefore the public losses out on possible new findings in the medical field.

I am pursing my MPA in order to increase my skills in constructing budgets, conducting statistical analyses, evaluating programs and analyses and to one day be the leader of an organization. This class specifically will help me gain a deeper knowledge in communications that take place when people come together to make a decision and when deliberating. As was mentioned in class dealing with deliberations is an important aspect to know in order to be a better leader.

12 Angry Men

From the beginning of the film it becomes clear that reasoning does not play a role for everyone’s decision in voting. The preliminary vote ,done by a show of hands, proves this as a few jurors look at their peers before raising their hands in voting “guilty. This suggests that they have not come to their conclusion based on reason but, by a “majority rules” mentality. The results of this vote come to a 11-1 count in favor of finding the defendant guilty. This prompts the group to convince the 8th juror of the defendant’s guilt. It becomes evident from the 2nd juror’s reasoning, or lack thereof, that he is voting on whim. He explains his vote is based on how he feels, that he “just thinks he’s guilty”.The only one character who seems to be only persuaded by reasoning and evidence and not circumstance or emotion is the 4th Juror .His occupation as a stockbroker and logical personality make him , unmoved by emotion. His reasoning had nothing to do with his own circumstances or biases. Although he doesn’t agree with those who vote not guilty he never shows emotion and distances himself from those who do like the third juror.

The 3rd Juror is staunch in his belief of the defendant’s guilt from the beginning. Over the course of the film it becomes obvious that he’s basing his decision on personal experience with his own son who reminds him of the defendant. Throughout he claims that he is rational and basing his decision on fact but his emotions always seem to get the best of him making him irrational. Whether he became enraged at other jurors for arguing for the defendant’s innocence or even going against evidence he once claimed to be proof of the defendant’s guilt .One example of this is when he stands by the old man’s testimony of making it to the door in time to see the defendant running down the stairs . When this evidence is broken down,(like the old man’s limp not allowing him to physically make it to the door in the time he stated) he dismisses the flaws in the old man’s story and says something to the effect of the old man not being able to remember because he’s old.

While the emotions of the jurors created disruption while discussing the evidence in the case ,I argue that emotions played an overall positive role . As emotions run high it allows for other jurors to use reason. Emotions eventually exposed the bias that the jurors have like prejudice. We see this when the 11th Juror who has an immediate disdain for the defendant because he is the product of the slums and an immigrant. Towards the end he exposes himself to the other jurors as a bigot and actually comes to terms with his prejudice. He votes not guilty towards the end when he realizes that he hadn’t been using reasoning or evidence.

Although the 8th juror seems to be the voice of reason , the audience learns early on that part of his reasoning for not wanting to vote guilty seems to be in part because he feels the boy is so young and shouldn’t be killed. It is important to note however that this emotion and feeling the 8th juror has towards the young boys life also acts in a positive way and allows him to put evidence into perspective . It is what allows him to think beyond the presentation by the prosecution. One example is when he goes into the boy’s neighborhood and finds a knife that is just like the “rare” knife the defendant is accused of using to kill his father with. This initiative is also what makes the 8th juror a leader.

Leadership played a large role throughout the entire film.The 8th juror emerges as obvious leader , not only for going against the grain and voting not guilty,but because of his ability to stand his ground and persuade the majority of jurors to review evidence throughout the film. This leadership also propelled other jurors to speak up and take leadership roles. One example is when the 9th juror is persuaded by the knife evidence presented by 8th juror . After the 9th juror is convinced he consistently and speaks up in favor of the not guilty vote and provides his own opinion and assists in breaking down the testimony of the old man.

Self- Introduction

My name is Arielle Crayton. I’m a full time student and this is my first semester at Baruch. I attended Boston University for undergrad and studied Political Science. My background is in politics , before attending Baruch I worked on the Bernie Sanders campaign organizing in Harlem. Professionally ,I hope be a programs officer in a non-profit upon graduation.

fun fact- Ill be in an short movie this fall

12 Angry Men

Even though the foreman was the court-appointed “leader” of the jury, he did not exhibit any real leadership throughout the discussion. At first, he loosely tried to establish procedures for deliberation, however his actual role throughout the film was as a gate-keeper for voting. This allowed space for another leader to emerge organically, but not without considerable struggle. I instinctively want to point to Juror #8 as the group’s appointed leader, however I think the leadership role in this setting was fluctuating constantly. Perhaps that is the poetry of #8’s leadership role–he lead by example and invited others to follow of their own accord.

No formal procedures dictated who spoke, although the foreman did suggest that the jurors go around the table and each express his opinion on the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Even with this structure in place, the discussion often broke away from this format, with the loudest man telling men he disagreed with or perceived to be weaker to be quiet. Since there was no clear structure, the discussion quickly devolved into one where the loudest voices and peer-pressure prevailed. This format, employed in the beginning by the majority, did not withstand the rational, calm arguments of the few. As a model to use for other discussions, I don’t think the “12 Angry Men approach” is productive the majority of the time. In this case, however, the discussion had an unseen moderator: American, white-male centered worldviews. Since they all shared this worldview in one way or another, they were able to govern themselves and the discussion productively. If any or some of the jurors had a drastically different worldview from the others, I believe the discussion would have been wildly counterproductive.

12 Angry Men

The movie, 12 Angry Men depicts prejudices, partialities, and positions often taken due to perceptions of others. Eleven of the 12 jurors in the movie concluded even before jury deliberations began that the defendant was guilty. Their decision (guilty verdict) was not based on the veracity of the facts of the case but on personal biases. One juror was utterly convinced that the defendant racial background was enough to render him guilty. He asserted that people of the defendant’s race had innate criminal tendencies that made them likely to commit crime. Another juror based his decision on witness accounts, which when considered is a fair point. But the accounts were not exhaustive or conclusive in the picture it painted, or the story it told. Juror 8, the only guilty verdict dissenter, and the only juror to questioned the defense counsel’s line of questioning; felt the defense counsel was not expansive enough in the defense of his client. He felt there were legitimate inferences that were not considered, such as the time of the murder, the murder weapon, and the accounts of the witnesses.

Speaking Rules

Speaking rules were adopted based on jury number. Voting by ballot was also agreed upon in principle. Each juror was given the opportunity to give a guilty or not guilty position. It became cleared after the first few jurors gave their positions that many were hinged on prejudices and biases.

Decision Rules

At the onset of the deliberations, the lead juror informed the other jurors that he was not going to set voting rules, rather, he would allow consensus on how voting should take place. After an agreed preliminary vote, the decision of the jury stood at 11-1 (guilty). Confronted with juror 8 not guilty votes, the jurors at this point all agreed that deliberating the evidences of the case was the best way of arriving at a consensus decisions.

Reasoning Evidence

Juror 8 was convinced that the standard of proof (Reasonable Doubt) was not surpassed to meet a guilty verdict. He reasoned that before passing a guilty verdict in a murder trial, all extenuating evidence had to be thoroughly looked at. Another point juror 8 raised was the degree to which the defense counsel represented the defendant.

Emotional Outlook of Jurors

Members of the jury emotional outlook varied. Juror 7 was distracted by a Yankee game he was scheduled to attend later that evening. He seemed in a hurry to vote guilty so he could get to the game. Juror 10, who appeared to have a cold, was adamant in his belief that the defendant was guilty because of his race. Juror 3 believed the defendant was guilty because boys the defendant’s age was capable of hurting their parents in physical and emotional ways. His position was premise on his relationship with his son.

Jury Composition

The members of the jury professional background varied. There was an ad executive, architect, baseball enthusiast, a watchmaker, a banker, etc. The composition of jury in terms of professional background was diverse.

Demographic Characteristics of Jurors

Members of the jury comprised of mostly Caucasian men. There appeared two men of European origin. The juror with knowledge of switchblade (Knife) usage, displayed understanding of what it is like to live in disadvantaged communities.

Leadership Styles

Juror 1 leadership style contrasted with the leadership style of juror 8 in one obvious way; juror 1 proposed a vote without thoroughly deliberating the facts or looking a little deeper at the evidences. He appeared convinced the defendant was guilty. Juror 8 felt the need to hear the opinions of his colleagues before reaching a consensus decision.