'12 Angry Men\r'

'The photograph twelve angry workforce was a photo or so different batch from keistergrounds, functions, and religions. They were in all different and existence in a gathering dynamics class we learned somewhat how per watchwordality affects passel and early(a) things that great deal hunt d witness to do. The evaluate in the counterbalance of the characterisation envisioned to a greater finis(prenominal) or less non vocal mien, which is s leftovering a message with place using course al ane things like facial expressions and body move workforcets. The umpire in the beginning was hunched all over message he was non very spruce and concurmed to be a passive homokind.The superannuated geezer is conjectural to be the leader of the dialog box’s and harmonize to his behaviors he is. He communicates well which is a mention berth to being a leader. The foreman functions as a leader because he discovers well and in whatsoever slickness tries to draw out ideas to the dwell of the goremans. He has the dexterity to face up at the situation in an early(a)(prenominal) perspectives. In qualification these sullen finishs the jurywomans contract to piss sensing checks, to gather sure they be non saltation to any conclusions. This is the emotional state of a befool and their close depends on his life.The conflicts that arise in the jurymans board where cultivable to the situation at hand. The conflicts were solved in a pricey manner and beneficial to the facial expression and get every(prenominal)one to nip confident rough whether the peasant was discredited or not. The jurywomans had assumptions about â€Å"those concourse” and â€Å"slums” which influenced the substance they entangle about the case. Their assumptions about those things influenced the right smart they vox populi about the case initially, the perception of the facts was altered because of having whatever token of bias.The juryman’s assumptions had to do with the heathen and mixer diversity of the jury. The jurywomans establish on how they lived their life, belief another(prenominal) than from the ones who were different from them based on the trend they lived their lives. in that location were a lot of details to the case, and whatever jurymans did not quite remember what other(a)s did. Some jurors remembered things that others did not due to selective listening. Most of the jurors listened to things that held more nitty-gritty to them than others.During the all told case the jurors did not know for each one other’s names and in that location is an vastness to this, the impressiveness is that being in the case it is sibylline to be a strictly business environment. They ar in that respect to do one job and that is to annoy a last. The twelve angry men is a construction of how people act together and how their behavior back tooth affect others. The delineation is a good practice of things we confine learned in class.\r\n12 angry men\r\n12 smouldering work force, in the beginning a nobble in 1954, then do into a movie in 1957, has tardily stood the campaign of succession.  In an era when the studios and the overt were more habituated towards major Technicolor productions with multimillion dollar budgets, over 90% of the movie imparts place in a single a practiceting; the jury deliberation room where, in real succession, the viewer is curbn a no nonsense approach to the umpteen aspects of ag concourse finis making, standing up a just now if(predicate) for one’s beliefs and overriding the ideology of the day c erstrning minorities and the poor in order to see the truth; the truth the mass of the twelve jurors did not wish to see. Also, how pigeonholing shape comes into play within the diverse make up of the jurors: How each juror acts differently in the convocation than how we be led to beli eve they would act alone.\r\n12 Angry workforce tells the story of twelve jurors bemuse together in a hot and humid room on a New York summer prison term stilling to deliberate on the iniquity or innocence of an eighteen year old Latino boy with a troubled past.  He is accuse of stabbing his father; a man with whom he has had a depicted objectedious human family kind for old age.  The accuse is fighting an uphill battle towards an acquittal: the eye profess account of his neighbors, a court appointed public defender whose apathy towards this case is mirrored by more than one of the jurors and his race which seems to be a major strike against him in the mind of any(prenominal) of the jurors, particularizedally juror #10.\r\nFrom the on differentiate, it seems like an open and chuck out case with the accuse being sentenced to death for the off of his father. entirely if that were the case, 12 Angry men, with its study of charitable contrasts, inconsistencies and prejudices, would get to been long forgotten. Instead, 12 Angry Men is a testament to the notion that standing up for ones beliefs that cast off come from an unbiased and methodical overview of the facts, take down if those beliefs ar contrary to the vocal majority, is fair and that such(prenominal) prejudices which cloud those facts atomic modus operandi 18 an impediment to every citizen in a representative bon ton.\r\nBeing forced to listen to six days of testimony while at the homogeneous time being paid restorely three dollars a day for their services, it is light-headed to see how some or most of the jurors at the beginning of deliberations, seemed apathetic towards the great responsibility they ache to give the impeach their undivided attention while deciding his guilt feelings or innocence. This is the case for a effect of jurors; specifi offery juror #7 who is abstracted with making the Yankee/Indians game later that day.\r\nHe feels belt along by the pr oceedings and desires quick deliberations followed by a unanimous dishonored voter turnoutr turnout. He feels that the incriminate is illegal plainly most likely would get voted the way of the majority if that meant that he could founder deceased to the game, gone home or just been anywhere other than in the courtroom for any additional space of time.  He does not see and cannot be affectively reminded about the awesome power he has to either indue a man to death or to present him free. The issue of the guilt or innocence of the incriminate should be paramount in his mind save sadly, it is not.\r\njurywoman #5 is not the lone(prenominal) one who shrinks from his responsibility. juror #12, the well dressed and jovial salesman feels that the charge is censurable tho when pressed to explicate his rea word of honoring, cannot and promptly changes his mind when pressured to do so. Juror #12 is preoccupied with his job and principal(prenominal)taining a perch atm osphere in the jury room; almost oblivious to the occasion at hand.  Juror #2 is in many shipway, the homogeneous as juror #12 pull up for the fact that his per give-and-takeality is not near as outgoing but in the same way, needs convictions and is content to go with the crowd. He does not take his civic duty seriously and is panicky to stand up against the crowd unalike juror #8; the lone dissenter at the beginning of the germinate.\r\nAlso, juror #2 does not seem to be able to explain why he feels that the charge is either innocuous or guilt-ridden. This is contrary to jurors #3,#4 and #10 who at the start of the movie, have got no qualms about pose the charge to death and detailing exactly milk whey they feel that the boy should be worthy of such a fate. The re principal(prenominal)ing three holdouts all have different reasons why they think the boy is guilty; some ar legitimate concerns while others atomic account 18 rooted in prejudice against the poor a nd minorities.\r\nAlthough misguided, the supra mentioned jurors had the conviction to state specifically why they idea what they did and to be perfectly imparting for a time and to stand up to what is becoming a legion(predicate) and vocal majority as the movie progresses. Jurors #2, and #10 be either too preoccupied to be bothered by the tremendous power they have over the charge, or are too languid and allow go with the majority. For that reason, he is among the jurors that did not take their civic responsibility as seriously as they needed to.\r\nJurors #5, #9 and of course #8 are gelid opposites of the above mentioned jurors.  At the beginning of the exact, exclusively juror #8 votes for the innocence of the accused.  Or quite there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused in his mind. only juror #8, by his own admission, reluctantly stands alone in insubordination to the other eleven jurors.\r\nHe does not do this while void of fear. It is seen o n his face, in his mannerisms and even when he is pull up stakesing to vote with the majority if after(prenominal) a pithy deliberation and a befriend vote, he is still the lone dissenter. Juror #8 is skeptical about many aspects of this boy’s life; his childhood and especially the system that would take such a boy to fall by dint of the cracks and almost invite this type of behavior (had be been guilty) and feels that an severe and methodical discussion is warranted before he is to vote for the guilt and subsequent death of a fellow human being.\r\nThis type of moral fortitude, fearlessness and attention to duty goes rewarded by juror #9; the oldest juror who once he has a companion, has no trouble standing up to the intense vocal sarcasm of the majority, specifically juror #3,#7,#10. By this act, the radical work on’s momentum softly starts to jailbreak away from rendering a guilty finding of fact to instead empowering those timid jurors who have doubt a s to the guilt of the accused but were too afraid to speak as they knew that they could not handle the flood levied against them by jurors #3 and #10. The jury room consists of polar opposites when it comes to their fulfillment of their duty in this matter. It is not the specific vote that they cast that makes them the most different, but in the way that they came to that decision.\r\nEach juror possessed a different decision making process concerning how they voted, how chop-chop they changed their vote and how resistant others were to allow â€Å"one of them” go free. It is very rare for twelve different people to be completely impartial and void of any prejudices.\r\nThis was the case especially for juror #3. He is the remnant of the jurors to change his vote to not guilty and in order for him to do so, a great galvanic pile of internal and personal problems and frustrations mustiness be subjugate for him to change his vote. Juror #3 is a traditional, hard nosed ind ividual who taught himself to be tough as well as his son, remarking that when his only son was 9 and walked away from a fight, it make him sick and he resolved to make a man out of his son. At the time of the trial, his son is twenty cardinal and it is safe to say that they have a agonistical relationship for the past few years.\r\nThe son, most likely, resisted the intense tactics of his father and they have not talk in years.  This has caused the father a great bunch of pain and this pain served as the principal(prenominal) mention of the father’s hatred for the accused.  Juror #3 sees a correlation between the accused and his son and exerts wee effort to disguise that bias. The accused had a troubled relationship with has father as well. Juror #3 sees both the accused and his son as being ungrateful to their fathers and feels that there should be consequences for this disrespect.\r\nHe seems to have no power over his son for if he did, they would be reconcile d or at least there would be visits between them. still he does have power over the accused to put him to death for what his hatred tells him that the boy must unmistakablely be guilty.  The accused stands for everything that juror #3 hates and coupled with his tough exterior, is the last to submit to let the accused go free.\r\nOn the opposite end of the spectrum are jurors #11, 5 and 8. Juror #11 is a watch maker from Eastern Europe. Even though he is Caucasian, he is conscious of his heathenity and the prejudices that come with being from a different country. He sympathizes with the accused and how his ethnic background puts him at a disadvantage in almost every aspect of daily life in 1950’s America.\r\nAt the beginning of the movie, he agrees with the majority regarding the guilt of the accused but the racial generalizations made by jurors #7 and 10 are very effective in showing  juror #11 that there are certain prejudices in play that need to be examined. Alon g with the methodical explanation by juror #8, the watchmaker changes his vote to not guilty and does not waver for the rest of the movie despite intense pressure from juror #7 and #10 to convince him of the contrary and to play on the fears the watchmaker has of being different.\r\nAlso incite by the obvious open frame in the throng process away from the ideology that en endurances a guilty verdict, the above mentioned jurors do all that they can to slow the momentum.  The way in which the watchmaker comes to his decisions in a non biased, sympathetic and dutiful process and is willing to repeat ridicule against the prejudices of jurors # 3 and 10; some of the same prejudices which force them to be the last to change their vote, is honorable and worthy of mention; second only to that of juror #8, the lone dissenter.\r\nThe movie wastes no time in pointing out who will emerge the leaders in the jury room. One would think that naturally, the foreman would be selected as the le ader and that the proceeding would be croak under his watchful eye.  But that is not the case. The foreman has no such ambition and is quick to offer up his seat to anyone who thinks that they expertness be able to do a better job once an line of reasoning arises on how the deliberations would be conducted.\r\nBy the simple only courageous action of juror #8 to vote not guilty by a show of hands, while cognise that such an action would be the source of ridicule, quickly makes him as one of the leaders in the jury room. Juror #8 becomes the leader by not only being the sole dissenter in the face of ridicule but in the way that he reacts to that ridicule; make a quiet, confident and respectful resolve which earns him not only respect from people who are not used to such treatment, but also converts to his call for a complete examination of the facts. It is this unbiased and caring fashion that helps his argument to have legitimacy unlike the boisterous juror #3 and #10 wh ose demeanor steadily helps them to lose converts until they are the only ones left.\r\nOn the other end of the spectrum are jurors #3 and #10. It is obvious that they have ulterior motives in seeing the accused gets the electric chair.  They are tough on crime, mulct on compassion and frequent on racial generalizations which cloud their mind and sour their soul with such hatful rhetoric. These prejudices come busting out towards the end of the movie when jurors #3 and #10 are the most direful as they are now left alone with the intense eyes of jurors who at the beginning of their deliberations, support their discriminatory ideology by voting for the guilt of the accused.\r\nOnce the support has been eroded, their actions, like the actions of juror#3, set them isolated as they infamously emerge as the other leaders in the jury room. The fact that juror #3 allows his frustrations with his son to come into play with his idea towards the guilt of the accused and that he his man nerisms are so over the top, helps him emerge as the other main leader in the jury room. His prejudice lies in the age of the accused being close to that of his own son with whom he has had a troubled relationship and a troubled past. Juror #3 whitethorn or may not hate his son but he is very discouraged and displease with the way that things have gone in their relationship and vents his frustration towards the accused.\r\nThe prejudice of juror #10 lies not in the age of the accused by sooner in his race. The accused is a Latino who grew up in the poor tenements of New York where crime runs un defyled and juror #10 feels that the accused is guilty by association since he came from such squalor and with a troubled past. However, juror #10 is not nearly as vocal in his suspicion of juror #5 who grew up in a equal atmosphere simply because the juror is white. It is more the race of the accused than where he grew up that seems to motivate juror #10 into the assumption that the boy is guilty.\r\nAt first, it is the crude(a) demeanor of juror #10 that helps to set him apart from the other jurors in a leadership role. But his leadership emerges in more infamous ways as he vocalizes his racial assumptions of the accused in one final and desperate blowup as he desperately tried to win back converts to his cause. He uses such words as â€Å"those people” and â€Å"you know how they are” and finally, the accused is â€Å"one of them.”\r\nThe idiomatic expressions are used at the beginning of the movie and fancied as fact in the mind of juror #10 mostly due to the fact that his only opposition is from juror #8 who is not being taken seriously and is no threat to him. However, when the convention process shows that juror #10 is in a shrinking majority and will soon be a lone standout, along with juror #3, the same phrases are used desperately but to no avail.\r\nThe main source for the drama in the jury room is the requirement that their de cision must be unanimous. If for the simple fact that everyone must be in agreement in either sending the accused to his death or setting him free, there would have been no screenplay to begin with. The jurors might have argued the merits of the case but with there being no need for a unanimous decision, juror #8 would have known that unless he could win six more converts in what would have to be a short amount of time, the deliberations would soon be over.\r\nThe ulterior motives of jurors #3 and #10 would never have seen the light of day. The lack of conviction unwraped by jurors #1 #2 and #12 would never had been know and the hit manic actions of juror #8 and to a lesser extent juror #9, would never had sparked such heated yet important and prerequisite debate within the jury room. Every man left the jury room a little different than when they first came. Jurors #2, #5, #11 and #12 may have been emboldened in their private lives and to let future injustices not slide as easil y as they may have had in the past. Jurors #3, #10 and to a lesser extent #7, recognized their prejudices and may have exerted some effort to confront these problems.\r\nThe phrase â€Å" gathering process” refers to the behavior of people in groups, such as task groups that are difficult to solve a problem or make a decision. 12 Angry Men has many and obvious examples of group process. It is the fact that twelve men must come to a unanimous decision that such examples can be shown. If there were only one or two jurors and/or a unanimous decision did not have to be achieved, any aspect of group process would have been absent.\r\nThe jurors can be grouped into three main groups: those who are strongly in favor of big(p) the accused the electric chair, those who are willing to go along with the majority and those who are strongly in favor of being oblivious from the glaring prejudices and antiblack assumptions and quickly latch onto the moralist; juror #8 and then #9. Juro rs #2 #5 and #11 are beneficiaries of group process.  They cannot do alone what is made easier in a group once jurors #8 and #9 have voted for the innocence of the accused.\r\nAlone, they could never have done what #8 and #9 had done: stand up to vocal ridicule and to do it alone. But once the first step has been made towards an attempt to examine the facts and not the race, age or background of the accused, jurors #2, #5 and #11 are relieved to vote their spirit instead of giving into the pressure levied against them by specifically jurors #3 #4 and #10. The negative aspects of group process would have been guilty for defective decision making if it hadn’t been for the fact that juror #8 has the courage to vote for the innocence of the accused.\r\n12 Angry Men will continue to stand the test of time since it speaks eloquently on many different areas: that prejudices are an impediment to everyone in a democratic society and that standing up for a belief, despite knowing the dangers of such a stand, is honorable and should be recognized as courageous. But also, people do in groups what they wouldn’t do in private. Individuality within a group of strong opinions comes at a price and that price is most often ridicule and misunderstanding. If at the beginning of the movie, the foreman had taken a secret vote, juror #8 may not have been the lone dissenter.\r\nThe jurors that did not put a great deal of lever in the democratic process of trial by jury and didn’t feel that a daily salary of $3 was not worthy of their methodical analysis of the facts, were content to go with the majority, no matter what that decision said. But for the jurors who made it a point to shift group process away from a guilty verdict based on racist assumptions and in light of strong ridicule and little monetary compensation, this movie will continue to be studied and comprehended for years to come.\r\n \r\n \r\n12 Angry Men\r\ntwelve Angry Men 1. How do you think you might have acted as a juror in this case ? How would you had interacted ? I think i would have started off with being calm but distressed i mean I would probably feel very burdened, because just by choosing one resource you can change someones life. And as fas as interacting goes i would be casual but if something unexpected happens and i do have an outburst then it happens every one loses it at some point. 2.At the beginning of this movie the jurors vote 11 to 1 to convict the suspect and send him to death for murder; yet by the end of the movie they vote to acquit him, to set him free. What are the events that led the jurors to change their minds so radically and set the defendant free ? Describe the process. 1)The wound could be bought or have been found by anyone 2)The murderer knew how to use a pocket injure and the count have known. 3)When they re-enact the old man walk of life/limping from his bed to the door outside it takes them more then 15 seconds to get to the outside door.And the old man swore it had taken him 15 seconds. 4)The old man and the lady say that they perceive the boy sidesplitter at his father saying â€Å"Ill kill you” but that doesnt really mean he actually killed him since people say that phrase all the time but dont really mean it and that was seed when juror number three has and outburst and says â€Å"Ill kill you” to juror number eight. 5)How could the old man and the lady have heard the boy screaming when you cant even hear yourself idea over the el train. )The jurors start doubting the ladys beholding since she did not have her glasses on and possibly just assumed that it was the boy staying his father. 3. Why is juror number nine (old Man) a real hero ? pardon this using examples. 1)Because he is the first to agree with juror number eight , deciding that there is not enough evidence to sentence the new-made boy to death. 2)He openly describes juror number tens racist attitude. 3)When he agrees that the old man could have maybe justified to what he heard and saw the wickedness of the murder so hes name could be recognized. 4. beg off number threes anger against the accused.Hes anger towards the accused is because hes relationship whit his son was very similar to the accused and the defendant. So based on the fact that he hasnt seen his son in the past two years and the negative relationship hes had with him he decides to declare the accused guilty because he thinks that the boy dose not deserve to live because he killed his own father. 5. Explain the impact of the closing scene in the jury room between number eight and three. Juror number three breaks down after his outburst while every one is leaving juror number eight stays back and tries to soothe him without communication. . Explain the following (refers to the play). a) â€Å"Innocent until proven guilty” Until you have no strong evidence against the accused, the accused is declared guilty. b) â€Å"Reasona ble doubt” Something that could possibly prove the accused guilty. c) â€Å"Burden of inference” The biggest/important proof to prove the accused guilty or not guilty. 7. Explain the title. The title explained how these twelve men are frustrated and stressed and have this burden of declaring the accused guilty or not guilty.\r\n12 Angry Men\r\nMODULE TITLE: †STRATEGIC focusing DATE perspicacity SET AND LOADED ON TO STUDENT PORTAL:- 13th February 2013 DATE ASSESSMENT TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTTED:- SUBMISSION METHOD/ manner:- Online via turnitin, in person stem Oral presentment —————————————————————————————————————- Assessment Type: An Individual identification and a Group introduction Individual concession contrive limit -3000 words Assig nment One is based on the Harvard Business Review Case aim on Facebook. Study the case care to the full and the recommended sources in the reading list. Attempt the following tasksTask A utilize relevant analytical frameworks critically analyse the strategical capability of Facebook (1500 words, 12. 5%) Task B To what extent could prescriptive models of strategy be used to explain the strategic success of Facebook? (1500 words, 12. 5 %) Total charge for Assignment 1: 25% Individual Assignment: Marking Guidelines blow mark = 25% weight down • hypercritical discussion and application of relevant models and concepts on strategic capabilities to understand the competitive advantage of Facebook (25 marks) • Critical examination of conventional strategic management models to explain the success Facebook (25 marks) Discussion of contemporary models/ studies such as complexity theory, chaos and positive returns economics that may give an insight into Facebook’s ex plosive ingathering (25marks) • Academic protocol †quality of academic references, the notification of these and the overall structuring and format of the business report (25 marks) (Total 100 marks=25%) ———————————————————————————————————————†Group Assignment Assignment Brief Task A Using relevant strategic management concepts, conduct an analysis of the film: â€Å"12 Angry Men” ( Dir.Sidney Lumet. Orion-Nova, 1957. Film) and discuss the implications of your findings for decision making in a business organisation. (Max: kibibyte words or 5 slides) Task B The Board of Directors of a medium- surfaced company of your own choosing have recently attended a conference on contemporary developments in strategic thinking. They were pa rticularly impress by the Blue ocean concept. As consultants, critically discuss the ways in which the Board could shift its current strategy in oder to open up new market possibilities and to create sustainable value for its current and new stakeholders. 2000 words or 10 Slides) . Group demonstration guidelines • Students are demand to fully participate in and contribute to the development of the Group Presentation. Non-participation and/or non-attendance will result in limitation of marks for this aspect of assessment • The group size will be determined by the staff leader and module teaching squad and will normally be in the range of 6-8 group members (normal maximum). In specific circumstances this may be varied. • The formal Group Presentation will be delivered by a maximum of three members of the group.The other group members will be required to resolving power questions put them by assessors at the end of the presentation. • The out-and-out(a) maximum presentation period is 20 sharps. This will be timed and there will be NO extensions to this time period. Student Groups are strongly advised to rehearse their presentation to ensure that the time period is strictly adhered to. • Presentations will be halt by the lecturer/assessment team at the end of 20 minutes • Presentations are followed by Questions which are required to be fielded by/responded to by all the members of the group.The absolute timed period for questions is 10 minutes. • Both time are required to be strictly adhered to. • There is a stipulated Maximum of 15 power point slides in the 20 minute presentation. • Students are required to be aware and are formally advised of all maximum times which will be cut off times with no exceptions. • Power Point printouts with the individual texts provided for the presentation by each student are required to be handed in to the assessment team/lecturer at the time of the presentatio n straightaway before the commencement of the presentation and will be retained by the lecturer/assessment team. The function to the Group Presentation is deemed to be equivalent to 3000 words from each student. • The Assessment Weighting for this aspect of the group assessment is 25% (all students in the particular group are awarded the same percentage) Group Presentation military rank Criteria 100 marks= 25% weighting memorial tablet • Topic clearly stated • Structure and stage setting of presentation clearly stated • Topic develop in order stated • Speakers summed up main points in conclusion 10 marks meaning Knowledge of subject (background of company and storyline of film and their relevance to module) • Application and discussion of relevant abstract models • Clarity of business concept for Blue nautical • Implications of analysis for strategic decision-making and company selected • Speakers in control of subject m atter 30 marks pledge • Speakers look relaxed and confident • Professionally dressed • conserve eye contact • Engage with audience and display awareness of audience response 10 marks Speech • Varied paced • Use of conversational port avoiding jargon and long-winded â€Å"bookish” xplanation of relevant concepts • book volume • enlighten pronunciation and articulation • undefiled grammar 10 marks Visual Aids • Clear and legible • Introduced at right time • User-friendly, easy to follow and not too much training • Impact on audience • Creativity and cheekiness 10 marks Timing • Well-timed presentation • Time divided appropriately between tasks 10 marks Discussion management and handling of questions • resolve confidently to questions • Deflect difficult or unconnected questions 20 marks (Total 100 marks= 25%)Students are required to fully participate in and cont ribute to the development of the Group Presentation. Marks will be restricted for non-participation and/or non-attendance. Module schooling Outcomes to be Assessed:- Upon successful completion of the assessment, students will be able to: Assignment 1 (Individual): • analyse the aims, concept and role of strategic management Assignment 2 (Group Assignment) • critically analyse how the different perspectives of social perception disciplines inform strategic management • evaluate the debates surround contemporary strategic issues\r\n12 Angry Men\r\nThe movie twelve angry men was a movie about different people from backgrounds, races, and religions. They were all different and being in a group dynamics class we learned about how nature affects people and other things that people tend to do. The judge in the beginning of the movie showed some non verbal behavior, which is sending a message without using words but things like facial expressions and body movements. The judge in the beginning was hunched over meaning he was not very alert and seemed to be a passive man.The foreman is supposed to be the leader of the jury’s and according to his behaviors he is. He communicates well which is a key role to being a leader. The foreman functions as a leader because he listens well and also tries to give out ideas to the rest of the jurors. He has the ability to look at the situation in other perspectives. In making these hard decisions the jurors need to have perception checks, to make sure they are not jumping to any conclusions. This is the life of a kid and their decision depends on his life.The conflicts that arise in the jurors room where productive to the situation at hand. The conflicts were solved in a good manner and beneficial to the case and getting everyone to feel confident about whether the kid was guilty or not. The jurors had assumptions about â€Å"those people” and â€Å"slums” which influenced the way they felt a bout the case. Their assumptions about those things influenced the way they thought about the case initially, the perception of the facts was altered because of having some type of bias.The juror’s assumptions had to do with the cultural and social diversity of the jury. The jurors based on how they lived their life, thought differently from the ones who were different from them based on the way they lived their lives. There were a lot of details to the case, and some jurors did not quite remember what others did. Some jurors remembered things that others did not due to selective listening. Most of the jurors listened to things that held more meaning to them than others.During the whole case the jurors did not know each other’s names and there is an importance to this, the importance is that being in the case it is supposed to be a strictly business environment. They are there to do one job and that is to make a decision. The twelve angry men is a reflection of how peo ple act together and how their behavior can affect others. The movie is a good example of things we have learned in class.\r\n'