An Old Gem

Rating: 9/10 (29 March 2017)

12 Angry Men is a movie about a panel of jurors deciding if a young boy, accused of murder, was guilty or not. Throughout this movie, the process of negotiation from the book "Getting to Yes" by Roger Fisher is applicable.
During the first stage of negotiation, the situation is diagnosed. Information is gathered, with hostile perceptions and self-interests being identified by the negotiating parties.
Most of the jurors' self-interests involved leaving the room and reaching a 'guilty' verdict quickly. Coupled with the warm, uncomfortable room setting and other personal reasons, the jurors were likely to accede to the pressure of wanting to leave, making a hastily, undeliberated decision. Initially, peer pressure and groupthink impaired a rational decision-making outcome. Some were firm in their choices, raising their hands quickly to indicate a guilty vote, while others looked around the room first before slowly, hesitatingly raising their hands. The major obstacles include premature judgement, which was derived from not separating the people from the problem. The boy was from a slum background. However, some jurors perceived children from slums to be societal threats, having violent tendencies and bad behaviour. Hence, they wanted the boy to be voted as guilty as it benefited society.
In the first vote, Juror 8 was the only one to vote 'not guilty', emphasising the importance of focusing on interest, not positions. Standing by his principles of justice, he explained to the rest of the jurors that his core concern and interest was serving a fair trial. He maintained that he did not want to take a position on whether the boy was indeed guilty without a thorough cross-examination process and further discussion. Following that, he acknowledged their interests of wanting to end the discussion and he proposed spending more time discussing about the issue at hand, rather than immediately deeming the accused as 'guilty'. His proposal was consistent with some of the other jurors' principles and values, such as Juror 9, who agreed that there should be a longer discussion. Juror 8 has also recognised and understood emotions displayed by the other jurors. For instance, he coaxes Juror 7, who was feeling impatient to catch his Yankees game, that it was possible to spend an hour without missing his game.
During the planning stage, ideas to resolve the issue are being generated. At this point, some of the jurors already perceived the negotiation process with a common collective interest, on deriving a verdict based on principle and not pressure. They were more receptive of actively listening on plausible ideas on the boy being 'not guilty'.
Having objective criteria helped the jurors to focus on interests, not positions. The jurors were constantly reminded that if there was reasonable doubt on the boy's guilt, they should vote 'not guilty' unless otherwise. A fair procedure was involved. For example, all the jurors had to come to a common consensus of twelve 'not guilty' votes. If they were unable to come to a consensus, it implies a hung jury.
All jurors had a chance to share about their perspectives, in a round-robin manner. This allowed everyone to have a feeling of participation and a stake in the verdict, with their interests being accounted for if they were stated explicitly. Juror 8 constantly probes the other jurors who voted 'not guilty' why so. This allowed the jurors to think through their decision on whether it is rational. He does not attack their positions, but acknowledges that there could be a possibility that the boy may be guilty.
One collaborative idea was the re-enactment of the eyewitness accounts, such as the old man claiming to notice the defendant escaping the murder scene. During the re- enactment, the jurors realised that the old man could not have reached the scene in the 15 seconds he had claimed in court. This convinced the remaining jurors that there may be reasonable doubt on whether the boy is indeed guilty, as the confessions may be false.
During the discussion stage, differences in perceptions and feelings are acknowledged and addressed, resolving the conflict. The insistence on reaching a verdict was based on principle and not pressure is exemplified through Juror 4, who wanted to be convinced based on logic and facts. Furthermore, when Juror 3 still insists that the boy is guilty, Juror 8 wanted to hear his arguments as he was not convinced. Hence, the differences in perceptions and feelings are made explicit. It was clear that Juror 3's judgment was impaired due to a personal conflict with his son.
Emphasising with the other parties' emotions is also key to separate people from the problem. Even though facts are important, empathy is more crucial. It is paramount to recognise that the other parties have emotions, deeply held values, and different backgrounds and viewpoints and as such may be prone to cognitive biases and prejudice (Page 28). One explicit example was Juror 10. When he started ranting about how slum children were dangerous, the rest of the jurors turned away from him, remaining silent. It was evident from his emotional outburst that he had a "personal prejudice" against slum children and their social background. Reactive emotions are not convincing in a negotiation. The displays of anger by Juror 3 too made his stand less convincing. The jurors tend to not be receptive of what he said.
In conclusion, 12 Angry Men illustrates how successful negotiations often require careful analysis of different perspectives and arguments put forward. Emotions and positions should be separated to reach an objective outcome, satisfying all parties' interests and needs.