12 Angry Men is a film about 12 men on a jury having to make a unanimous decision of whether the defendant is guilty or not for murdering his father.

Rating: 7/10 (24 March 2017)

Many aspects of negotiation can be seen in the film, such as having opposing opinions which cause conflicts to arise, and as a result, being unable to reach a consensus in the beginning. With reference to Roger Fisher and William Ury's "Getting To Yes", we are able to see some of their principles of negotiation being employed in the film. More specifically, we can identify 3 major themes that are good principles of negotiation and are portrayed throughout the film. These themes are focusing on people, dealing with interests instead of positions and using objective standards to negotiate their stands.
The most apparent example of focusing on people instead of the problem is the approach that Juror 8 takes in the discussion among the jurors. Juror 8 tries to understand the different perspectives of each juror. He encourages each of the other 11 jurors to vocalize their reasons for voting guilty. This allowed everyone to participate in the decision-making process, with everyone being aware of each other's viewpoint. By doing this, he was able to step into each juror's shoes and view the case from their perspective. This gave him the ability to identify any inconsistencies or fallacies in their beliefs that the defendant was guilty. For example, he convinced Juror 4 to change his vote to "not guilty" by demonstrating that Juror 4 himself would not be able to remember what movie he watched in great detail, much less the defendant who was under considerable stress then. Understanding each stakeholder's perspective in the decision making process is critical to coming to a collective, informed decision.
Furthermore, Juror 8 constantly tries to manage the emotions and encourage objective communication between the jurors. Juror 8 understood that many of the jurors were emotionally involved due to various personal reasons, and the sweltering heat did little to help ease the tension that was rising in the room. Some of the jurors were impatient and agitated, with some of them occasionally flaring up when they lost their tempers. Juror 8 recognized these emotions and allowed them to vent their frustration while he maintained his composure and refrained from reacting to their emotional outbursts. For instance, he allowed Juror 3 to express his frustrations without interrupting him, and this eventually led to Juror 3 realizing his own biasedness due to his anger towards his son. The open communication as the deliberation progressed helped in creating more effective discussion, which led to less misunderstanding and a more informed decision. The foreman of the jury also encouraged the jurors to listen actively and acknowledge the opinions of the others, creating a healthy environment where people could share their opinions and the reasons for taking a "guilty" or "not guilty" stand.
In the film, we can see Juror 8 making an effort to understand the interests of the different jurors. Each juror was asked to share his opinion to allow everyone to understand their interests, so that the jury could come to an informed decision. Initially, all but Juror 8 hastily jumped to the conclusion that the defendant was guilty of murdering his father. Understanding the interests of the other jurors helped Juror 8 come up with arguments that tackled the problem from each juror's perspective. We can apply the concept of "being concrete but flexible" proposed by Ury and Fisher, where we should treat opinions that we formulate as simply illustrative, with the final decisions being made later. Juror 8 was hard on the problem but soft on the people, giving positive support to the jurors' opinions equal in strength to the vigor that we emphasize the problem with. Reaching a decision that is undisputed can be achieved when all parties involved in the decision-making process view the process as respectful and fair. At the end of the film, the jury comes to a unanimous decision that is respected by every juror because Juror 8 successfully plants a seed of doubt in every other juror.
In the film, we can also see that the basis of the arguments for "not guilty" were objective, rather than being based on individuals' subjective reasoning. This can be seen when Juror 8 challenges the validity of the eyewitness testimonies presented to them. Juror 8 astutely points out flaws in the claims made by the 2 eyewitnesses. He utilizes objective measures to analyze the given evidence to sway the few jurors who were convinced that the defendant was guilty based on the eyewitness accounts alone. For example, he proves that the old man would never have been able to reach the door in the time that he claimed he did by making use of the floor plan of his apartment. As such, all the jurors were able to engage in an objective reanalysis of the evidence and individually challenge their own opinions. There was also a focus on the facts of the case, rather than emotions of the individual jurors, which made the decision making more objective and the final decision more accurate. Using objective standards is an effective way in making sure that the discussion is conducted in a fair and unbiased manner.
In conclusion, throughout the film of 12 Angry Men, we can see the principles of negotiation from Ury and Fisher's "Getting To Yes". A negotiation that started out as hostile and focused on attacking the person, developed into one that focused on the objective facts and evidence of the case, and where people's interests and opinions were understood. Despite not knowing whether the defendant was guilty, Juror 8 manages to convince the other 11 jurors that there was reasonable doubt and this led to the unanimous verdict of "not guilty".