Negotiation techniques in an amazing film

Rating: 9/10 (14 April 2018)

"However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous... you are faced with a great responsibility". With those words, a jury is sent to deliberate the fate of a defendant. 12 Angry Men portrays the jury's process of coming to that crucial consensus. While eleven jurors deem the defendant guilty, Juror 8 (8) attempts to change their minds through a series of negotiations and reasoning. He utilises logic and sticks to his principles and belief in the face of majority opposition. Coupled with the jury members' receptiveness, it allows them to reach a unanimous decision that also reminds us about the need for empathy in decision-making.
8 controls his emotions and does not let it cloud his judgement, rather depending on objectivity to make his case as well as interact with the other jurors. In this aspect, we see the contrast between jurors. 8 is calm, listening respectfully and reflecting back what he hears. Meanwhile, Juror 10 (10) and 3 give in to their emotions, going on angry tirades and allowing prejudices to cloud their judgement. For example, 3 wrongly accuses Juror 5 (5) of changing his vote on the assumption that he is biased because of his upbringing in the slum. He also mocks Juror 9 (9), asking him to sell his sayings to newspapers. Similarly, 10 allows his prejudice to affect his emotions, ranting that "We're facing a danger here... they are wild animals... they want to destroy us", implying that he votes guilty because he views "these people" as dangerous animals, not because of the evidence. This failure to correct for skewed vision causes 10 and 3 to interpret information in a self-serving way. Their prejudice colours their interpretation of information and how they treat others, creating tension toward them that ultimately works against them. The antagonism they create in the room undermines their credibility as the film progresses.
By sticking to his principles, 8 manages to keep his objectiveness and impartiality, remaining consistent even in the face of immense pressure. As the only juror who votes 'not guilty', 8 acts as the sole dissentor, the minority that social scientists identify as one who influences behaviours through consistency. By consistently believing that it is the jury's duty to preserve the law, 8 stands his ground and does not accept a bottom line where the issue would be pushed to a new jury for a retrial. Instead, he remains firm and sets out objective criteria, using logic to influence and swing the jury to his side. Hence, we see that our principles must be consistent in order to logically influence others as the minority.
The outcomes of negotiations often affect the lives of people. As 8 says, "We're talking about somebody's life here". Empathy goes a long way in making such decisions. If the jury voted guilty, 10 and 3 might have 'won' in their respective positions, but a life would have been lost. Hence, although we are tasked to separate people from the problem, we must also consider the people in the solutions. By being empathetic, we can understand why certain people take up particular positions, and also prevent ourselves from making similar mistakes. Thus, although negotiation is often mistaken as a win-loss scenario, it is not the case. Through positive and collaborative negotiation, we can reach a consensus that benefits everyone.