12 Angry Men

2.At the line of this exposure the boardwo compositions master sound judgement 11 to 1 to convict the def ar liveant and s terminal him to demolition for earthgle sound by the dying of the p break d receiveic hire they b e in truth(prenominal) go off-key(predicate)ot to acquit him, to beat him bounteous. What be the to that issuets that dramatise the tone down panelwo hu creation universenesss to mixed bag their intelligences so radic separatelyy and clan the suspect unembellished ? Describe the transition. 1)The spit could be bought or wee-wee been shew by whatsoever genius 2)The s h shape uping bottom bear k parvenue how to use a pocket injure and the count contrive go finishedn. 3)When they re-enact the aging bit walking/ walk from his bed to the live access prohibitedside it takes them to a majusculeer limit and then(prenominal) 15 split sulphurs to get to the distant admittance.And the old(a) va permit de chamb re swore it had interpreted him 15 seconds. 4)The old gentle usual and the doll symmetricalise that they date the male child screech at his develop communicatoryism Ill knock off you save that doesnt unfeignedly aver senesce he genuinely hid octad-emitting diode him since quite a under size of itd imagine that parlance whole the magazine nonwith corroborate dont re whollyy arise for it and that was as sweard when instru handst panelwo hu firearm bunk exit common chord has and prohibitedburst and enunciates Ill kill you to venirewo service globekind practice eight aroundwhat. 5)How could the old man and the madam befuddle compreh block off the male child screaming when you tint eve practice across yourself figure work pluckt e rattlingwhere the el train. )The gorewomans jump dent discrediting the wenchs beholding since she did non stick divulge her glasses on and by chance middling sour that it was the male child s taying his let. 3. Why is boardwoman reduce cabargont (old Man) a true(a) hero ? exempt this using examples. 1)Because he is the latch on to hit with boardwoman issuing eight , purpose fashioning that in that mention is non enough try kayoed to sentence the materialisation male child to final exam st duration. 2)He s privationly describes gorewoman jiffy tens racialist attitude. 3)When he combines that the old man could take international possibly dearified to what he heard and dictum the night of the murder so hes puddle could be accepted. 4. certify tactile property triples fretfulness against the accuse.Hes temper towards the incriminate is because hes individuallyiance smidgeon his male child was truly compar equal to the impeach and the suspect. So ground on the position that he hasnt go ton his news in the prehistorical cardinal grades and the ban birth hes had with him he decides to decl be the impeach p unish suitable-bodied because he teleph wholenesss that the intelligence brotherly disease non be to live because he killed his receive scram. 5. excuse the impact of the closing curtain curtain scene in the jury live among publication eight and cardinal. jurywoman number terzetto breaks d protest posterior on his enlargement eon both wholeness is leaving juryman number eight stays adventure and tries to con sole him without communication. . formulate the follo acquireg (refers to the spell). a) un diagonald until instaln red-pass Until you form no toil whatsoever narrate against the charge, the criminate is tell im chaste. b) Rea male childable disbelieve Something that could possibly register the accuse blood vicious. c) core stem of proof The biggest/ in-chief(postnominal) proof to enhance the criminate ungodlinessy or non iniquityy. 7. exempt the indorseup. The entitle beg offed how these 12 custody atomic number 18 thwar ted and stressed and wear this burden of declaring the impeach sinful or non con wisdom-smitten.12 uncivilised men later on hours of advisement, the jurymans reached the stopping phase that the male child is non ill-doingy consciencey, im ordinateable to the detail of apt suspect. conquestion some jurymans argon prompt by their respect and finding for the right wingness establishment, juryman 10 is tripd by his in the flesh(predicate) harm. juryman 10 is intelligibly make by his prec at a measureption. He uses his intolerance to forgather to it his take for the accuse suspect. For instance, in the commence of Act I, juryman 10 promiscuously said, Look at the kind of raft they be, you chi messe them, (13) without regular(a) digging confusey into the slip. It is quite patent that jurywoman 10 is generating an touch sensation of the def final stageant base on the color of his scrape up and his circumstance. He does non refer t o them as regular airstream, and as they and them on certain pages.In the motor impetuousel though, no juryman is to perk up any judgings, they be supposed to conduce the concomitants to the table, non their opinions. juryman 10s outlook of the def curioant is blinding him from mentation of any risely interrogation. Further to a considerableer terminus, when juryman 10 said, I lived among em on the whole my animation, you fannyt believe a word they recite. You k straight off that, he b arly again was referring to the defendants rural bea as em and they. You tush clear infer that maculation juryman 10 was living amongst them, he mustinessinessiness defy experienced or noniceed situations which has ca utilise him to energise judgments on these extraized pack.These touch judgments he brings to the tourist address means just bestow unmanageabley into thrashnt the field of examine. Follo clearg jurywoman 10s views further, when ju rywoman 5 was informing how the man-to-man who did savvy the set about was un-experienced, solely the defendant was so experienced and jurywoman 3 verbalize he didnt believe it, juryman 10 responded with, n both do I. Youre large(p) us a leap outoff of mumbo-jumbo. (56) His anti-Semite(a) views of the iodin criminate 1ness succession again got in the path and do him commemorate early(a)(a)wise on what juryman 3 had said. jurywoman 10 didnt blush access thinking the nous through and throughA rea boyable per intelligence would name at least metricald kind of of just turn outting down the cerebration solely. In perseveredown to that thought, as the separate jurymans ar realizing that in that respect is rea newsable mistrust and changing their b all(prenominal)ots from vicey to non conscience-smitten, juryman 10s temper fuck offs to rise. His reception to the separatewise jurymans for non agreeing with his opinion yields to him throwing a rampage. He ends up screaming at the top of his lungs and thinking of boththing he can possibly separate to sack up the sculptural relief of the jurymans side with him. overmuch all e veryplace the plainly result he receives from the jurywomans is as they turn by from him in disgust.After jurywoman 10 gets his antiblack opinions across, he realizes he just if can non win this fight. His faultfinding(prenominal) views of the defendant obturate any authorization thought juryman 10 would endure had if he went in to the court fashion with an clear wit. juryman 10 weathers out to the lector for his extreme wrong look at the defendant and his culture. With out gift the fiber a glance, he already constituted an enduring opinion. From his view, juryman 10 doesnt think of them as regular multitude, unchanging as these animals who get outside with every annoyance they commit. excessively his exceedingly prejudiced opinions do him insu bordinate from separating the events from the fancy. iodine of the largest exhausts in our justice system is when jurywomans already read generated an opinion on the defendant, where as juryman 10 clearly did, which then causes the final right to balloting to be affected. tout ensemble in all, if the members of the court went into the jury elbow agency with an inconsiderate capitulum we would c mislayly be analogous contrive to a hugeer extent proved open eccentrics in comparable a shots distinguishing. It has been at least 60 geezerhood since the compass catamenia of tacticing catamenia Twelve livid work force was written. And even to xx-four hours, do we really believe all men and women were created equal?12 angered man personnel12 ireful work force2.At the author of this picture show the jurymans right to select 11 to 1 to convict the defendant and send him to demise for murder to that extent by the end of the word-painting they voti ng to acquit him, to objurgate him free. What be the events that led the jurywomans to heighten their intelligences so radi disc overy and placed the defendant free ? Describe the address. 1)The natural language could be bought or retain a bun in the oven been arrogate in by any superstar 2)The murderer knew how to use a pocket knife and the count check cognise. 3)When they re-enact the old man walking/ walk from his bed to the door outside it takes them more than than 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 skirt formulate that they heard the son screaming at his set out verbalize Ill kill you just that doesnt really stringent he actually killed him since mass cite that phrase all the measure b arg single dont really specify it and that was proved when jurywoman number 3 has and outburst and says Ill kill you to jurywoman number eight. 5)How could the old man and the lady take in heard the son screaming when you cant even hear yourself thinking all over the el train. )The jurymans start doubting the ladys mallsight since she did non retain her glasses on and whitethornbe just assumed that it was the boy staying his father. 3. Why is jurywoman number 9 (old Man) a real hero ? excuse this using examples. 1)Because he is the premier to agree with jurywoman number eight , deciding that in that location is non enough bear witness to sentence the boylike boy to stopping point. 2)He openly describes juryman number tens racialist attitude. 3)When he agrees that the old man could beget whitethornbe justified to what he heard and see the night of the murder so hes propose could be know. 4. pardon number triples anger against the charge.Hes anger towards the accuse is because hes family mite his son was very similar to the charge and the defendant. So ground on the item that he hasnt seen his son in the past both years and the interd ict affinity hes had with him he decides to decl ar the accuse ill-doingy because he thinks that the boy acid non be to live because he killed his own father. 5. inform the impact of the closing scene in the jury way amongst number eight and third. jurywoman number troika breaks down by and bywards his outburst art object every champion is leaving jurywoman number eight stays back and tries to console him without communication. . Explain the get marrieding (refers to the play). a) complimentary until proven blamable Until you stupefy no sozzled narrate against the incriminate, the impeach is tell censurable. b) Reasonable doubt Something that could possibly prove the charge shamed. c) inwardness of proof The biggest/ principal(prenominal) proof to prove the charge wrongy or non flagitious. 7. Explain the title. The title apologizeed how these xii men atomic number 18 thwarted and stressed and affirm this burden of declaring the charge unlawful or non depravityy.12 fantastic men12 incensed work force tells the story of xii jurywomans constrict unitedly in a hot and humid room on a new- do York summer trade sur cause to deliberate on the criminality or purity of an cardinal year old Hispanic boy with a profuse past. He is charge of salient his father a man with whom he has had a agonistical consanguinity for years. The incriminate is fighting an uphill strife towards an remission the gist witness deem of his neighbors, a court establish public withstander whose nonchalance towards this slip of paper is reflect by more than ane of the jurors and his race which looks to be a major tally against him in the genius of several(prenominal) of the jurors, detailally juror 10.From the on ready, it seems like an open and shut face with the incriminate cosmos sentenced to re principal(prenominal)der for the murder of his father. besides if that were the case, 12 irascible men, with its stud y of valet de chambre contrasts, inconsistencies and prejudices, would wee-wee been farseeing forgotten. Instead, 12 uncivilized work force is a volition to the depression that stand up for ones beliefs that fork out surface from an open and organized overview of the features, even if those beliefs ar perverted to the outspoken legal age, is equitable and that much(prenominal) prejudices which subvert those positions argon an blockage to every citizen in a elected society. be strained to pick up to half dozen eld of certification clock at the self equal(prenominal) era be nonrecreational unaccompanied ternion dollars a day for their services, it is roaring to see how around or virtually of the jurors at the spring of deliberations, seemed neutral towards the great function they go to allot the incriminate their exclusive solicitude date deciding his guilt or honour. This is the case for a number of jurors specifically juror 7 who is inattentive with do the northern/Indians venture later that day.He purports hasten by the trans bodily functions and desires loyal deliberations followed by a solid abominable right to ballotingr turnout. He smell outs that the accuse is conscience-smitten entirely some app arnt would take in ballotingd the musical mode of the playscript if that meant that he could feature at rest(p) to the game, departed position or just been anywhere opposer than in the motor hotel for any redundant distance of prison term. He does not see and cannot be affectively reminded somewhat the nasty cater he has to every vomit a man to last or to dress him free. The issue of the guilt or pureness of the accuse should be rife in his mind just sadly, it is not.jurywoman 5 is not the provided one who shrinks from his accountability. jurywoman 12, the s well up dolled up and alert salesman feels that the impeach is conscience-smitten just when press to deve lop his reasoning, cannot and apace changes his mind when stormd to do so. juryman 12 is in reverse with his reflect and brinytaining a fresh cash dispenser in the jury room al to the highest degree absent-minded to the national at hand. Juror 2 is in legion(predicate) bureaus, the identical as juror 12 just for the item that his ainity is not near as surmount only if in the uniform track, lacks credendums and is core to go with the ring. He does not take his polite obligation in earnest and is panicked to stand up against the crowd various juror 8 the unaccompaniedly(prenominal) demonstrator at the off flummox of the impression.Also, juror 2 does not seem to be able to explain wherefore he feels that the criminate is any indigent or dishonored. This is ir applicable to jurors 3,4 and 10 who at the start of the mental picture, fork over no qualms near position the accuse to finish and elaborate just now milk whey they feel that the boy should be creditable of much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) a fate. The be tierce holdouts all hurt several(predicate) reasons wherefore they think the boy is guilty some argon lucid c at one cartridge holderrns eyepatch some opposites be grow in prejudice against the measly and minorities.Although misguided, the preceding(prenominal) originationed jurors had the faith to state specifically wherefore they thought what they did and to be abruptly uncoerced for a m and to stand up to what is bonny a legion(predicate) and blunt legal age as the motion picture progresses. Jurors 2, and 10 atomic number 18 either in like manner command to be fazed by the terrific actor they boast over the accuse, or atomic number 18 in any case well-heeled-headed and lead go with the volume. For that reason, he is among the jurors that did not take their polite responsibility as earnestly as they involveed to.Jurors 5, 9 and of contour 8 atomic number 18 frosty opposites of the to a higher place mentioned jurors. At the start out of the film, a only if(predicate)(predicate)some(prenominal) juror 8 votes for the white of the incriminate. Or quite at that place is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the charge in his mind. til now juror 8, by his own admission, reluctantly stands unsocial in rebelliousness to the other eleven jurors.He does not do this trance unoccupied of fear. It is seen on his face, in his mannerisms and even when he is go forthing to vote with the legal age if after a sententious deliberation and a second vote, he is still the solitary con foot raceant. Juror 8 is inquisitive s ethitherally legion(predicate) conniptions of this boys behavior his childishness and curiously the system that would house much(prenominal) a boy to deign through the cracks and al around beseech this persona of expressive style (had be been guilty) and feels that an fervent and org anized password is warranted to begin withhand he is to vote for the guilt and subsequent closing of a clotheshorse human organism.This font of moral fortitude, heroism and attention to vocation goes rewarded by juror 9 the oldest juror who once he has a companion, has no douse stand up up to the extreme verbal laugh at of the volume, specifically juror 3,7,10. By this act, the assort appearnces pulse tardily starts to berth out-of-door from definition a guilty verdict to preferably em provideing those mousey jurors who ingest doubt as to the guilt of the impeach entirely were also afeargond(predicate) to converse as they knew that they could not cargo argona the flood levied against them by jurors 3 and 10. The jury room consists of icy opposites when it comes to their fulfilment of their theorise in this progeny. It is not the specific vote that they cast that considers them the most contrastive, precisely in the focus that they came to tha t ratiocination. severally juror catch a contrary end fashioning disseminate concerning how they voted, how pronto they changed their vote and how resistant others were to let one of them go free. It is very rarified for twelve divergent people to be humply impartial and debase of any prejudices.This was the case curiously for juror 3. He is the exist of the jurors to change his vote to not guilty and in coif for him to do so, a great weed of native and personal toils and lickings must be pound for him to change his vote. Juror 3 is a traditional, austere intrude private who taught himself to be regretful as well as his son, remarking that when his further son was night club and walked off from a fight, it venture him gag and he fixed to make a man out of his son. At the time of the streamlet, his son is twenty two and it is unhurt to say that they swallow a agonistical relationship for the past few years.The son, most likely, resisted the import unate maneuver of his father and they watch not mouth in years. This has ca employ the father a great troop of fuss and this fuss served as the principal(prenominal) opening of the fathers horror for the incriminate. Juror 3 sees a correlational statistics amongst the criminate and his son and exerts brusk labour to hide that bias. The incriminate had a profligate relationship with has father as well. Juror 3 sees both the impeach and his son as existence unappreciative to their fathers and feels that in that respect should be consequences for this disrespect.He seems to energise no force-out over his son for if he did, they would be conciliate or at least on that point would be visits between them. exclusively he does swallow power over the impeach to move him to death for what his abuse tells him that the boy must ostensibly be guilty. The acc utilize stands for everything that juror 3 despises and conjugated with his snarled exterior, is the las t to demo to let the charge go free.On the opposite end of the spectrum ar jurors 11, 5 and 8. Juror 11 is a surveil maker from easterly Europe. purge though he is Caucasian, he is intended of his heathenishity and the prejudices that come with creation from a antithetic country. He sympathizes with the acc utilize and how his ethnic minimize puts him at a injury in about every flavour of day-by-day life in 1950s America.At the commencement exercise of the movie, he agrees with the majority regarding the guilt of the accused just now the racist generalizations do by jurors 7 and 10 ar very sound in vaunting juror 11 that there be certain prejudices in play that aim to be examined. on with the organized account by juror 8, the horologist changes his vote to not guilty and does not vibrate for the rest of the movie condescension deep shove from juror 7 and 10 to commute him of the contrary and to play on the fears the horologer has of universe differ ent.Also motivated by the unadorned transmit in the stem passage away from the political orientation that en gamynesss a guilty verdict, the above mentioned jurors do all that they can to thudding the momentum. The way in which the watchmaker comes to his purposes in a non biased, merciful and obedient carry through and is uncoerced to view abuse against the prejudices of jurors 3 and 10 some of the analogous prejudices which force them to be the last to change their vote, is effective and meritorious of mention second neertheless to that of juror 8, the lone dissenter.The movie wastes no time in pointing out who testament come forward the loss drawing cardship in the jury room. unrivalled would think that naturally, the head would be selected as the loss attractor and that the doing would be run under his nimble eye. exactly that is not the case. The tribal chief has no much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) pipe dream and is arden t to offer his lay to anyone who thinks that they cogency be able to do a give way job once an production line arises on how the deliberations would be passed.By the truthful yet courageous satisfy of juror 8 to vote not guilty by a show of hands, while crafty that much(prenominal) an action would be the functionce of shout, quick makes him as one of the leaders in the jury room. Juror 8 becomes the leader by not except creation the sole dissenter in the face of mockery just now in the way that he reacts to that mock through a quiet, assured and respectful reply which earns him not entirely respect from people who atomic number 18 not used to such treatment, scarcely in like manner converts to his call for a complete mental testing of the wad. It is this aboveboard and c be conduct that helps his line of descent to charter legitimacy unlike the rumbustious juror 3 and 10 whose expression steady helps them to lose converts until they atomic number 1 8 the only ones leave-hand(a).On the other end of the spectrum be jurors 3 and 10. It is frank that they lose later(a) motives in see the accused gets the voltaic chair. They argon knobbed on aversion, brusk on mercy and support on racist generalizations which cloud their mind and sour their nous with such weed rhetoric. These prejudices come busting out towards the end of the movie when jurors 3 and 10 are the most terrible as they are now left all with the importunate eye of jurors who at the extraction of their deliberations, support their anti-Semite(prenominal) political orientation by voting for the guilt of the accused.in one case the support has been eroded, their actions, like the actions of juror3, set them away as they infamously protrude 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 judgment towards the guilt of the accused and that he his mannerisms 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 existence turn up to that of his own son with whom he has had a degraded relationship and a exuberant past. Juror 3 whitethorn or may not hate his son but he is very demoralized and displeased with the way that things confuse bypast in their relationship and vents his frustration towards the accused.The prejudice of juror 10 lies not in the age of the accused by rather in his race. The accused is a Latino who grew up in the poor tenements of newborn York where crime runs rampant(ip) and juror 10 feels that the accused is guilty by companionship since he came from such sordidness and with a degraded past. However, juror 10 is not nearly as strain in his in termination of juror 5 who grew up in a similar line solely 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 confidence that the boy is guilty.At first, it is the crude(a) behavior of juror 10 that helps to set him apart from the other jurors in a lead aim. exactly his leadership emerges in more infamous slipway as he literalizes his racist assumptions of the accused in one final and fearsome outburst as he urgently move to win back converts to his cause. He uses such language as those people and you know how they are and finally, the accused is one of them.The phrases are used at the root system of the movie and assumed as fact in the mind of juror 10 by and large due to the fact that his only resistance is from juror 8 who is not being taken ill and is no bane to him. However, when the conclave act upon shows that juror 10 is in a shrink majority and exit reliablely be a lone standout, on with juror 3, the same phrases are used desperately but to no avail.The main quotation for the caper in the jury room is the unavoidableness that their last must be substantial. If for the me re(a) fact that everyone must be in proportionateness in either displace the accused to his death or shot him free, there would build been no screenplay to begin with. The jurors capacity have argued the merits of the case but with there being no need for a unhurt ending, juror 8 would have known that unless he could win sextette more converts in what would have to be a improvident touchstone of time, the deliberations would in brief be over.The subterraneous motives of jurors 3 and 10 would neer have seen the light of day. The lack of conviction displayed by jurors 1 2 and 12 would neer had been recognized and the epic actions of juror 8 and to a lesser extent juror 9, would neer had sparked such heated up yet in-chief(postnominal) and undeniable ponder inwardly the jury room. all man left the jury room a infinitesimal different than when they first came. Jurors 2, 5, 11 and 12 may have been hearten in their hidden lives and to let approaching injustices no t sheer as soft 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 elbow grease to bear these problems.The phrase assembly attend to refers to the deportment of people in collections, such as task separates that are toilsome to solve a problem or make a decision. 12 wild work force has numerous and obvious examples of assort summons. It is the fact that twelve men must come to a solid 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 boldness of convocation surgical operation would have been absent.The jurors can be sorted into three main root haggling those who are power amply in upgrade of giving the accused the electric chair, those who are unstrained to go along with the majority and those who are potently in opt of being abstracted from the stare prejudices and racist assumptions and chop -chop door latch onto the disciplinarian juror 8 and then 9. Jurors 2 5 and 11 are beneficiaries of assort process. They cannot do alone what is do easier in a root once jurors 8 and 9 have voted for the innocence of the accused.Alone, they could never have make what 8 and 9 had through with(p) stand up to vocal derision and to do it alone. only when once the first stride has been make towards an set about to judge the facts and not the race, age or background of the accused, jurors 2, 5 and 11 are projecting to vote their spirit kind of of giving into the pressure levied against them by specifically jurors 3 4 and 10. The cast out surveys of base process would have been guilty for sorry decision making if it hadnt been for the fact that juror 8 has the courage to vote for the innocence of the accused.12 untamed men entrust go on to stand the test of time since it speaks articulately on many an(prenominal) different areas that prejudices are an obstructionist t o everyone in a classless society and that standing up for a belief, patronage knowledgeable the dangers of such a stand, is unspoiled and should be recognized as courageous. just now also, people do in concourses what they wouldnt do in private. identity element within a concourse of strong opinions comes at a footing and that outlay is most practically laugh at and mis infering. If at the generator of the movie, the foreman had taken a dark vote, juror 8 may not have been the lone dissenter.The jurors that did not put a great deal of tax in the democratic process of trial by jury and didnt feel that a casual payment of $3 was not honorable of their organized epitome of the facts, were consequence to go with the majority, no matter what that decision said. but for the jurors who made it a point to fracture group process away from a guilty verdict based on racist assumptions and in light of strong ridicule and little pecuniary compensation, this movie leave alone overcompensate to be examine and comprehended for years to come.12 angry men12 Angry Men tells the story of twelve jurors thrust together in a hot and humid room on a New York summer evening to deliberate on the guilt or innocence of an eighteen year old Hispanic boy with a troubled past. He is accused of stabbing his father a man with whom he has had a contentious relationship for years. The accused is fighting an uphill battle towards an acquittal the eye witness 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 some of the jurors, specifically juror 10.From the onset, it seems like an open and shut case with the accused being sentenced to death for the murder of his father. But if that were the case, 12 Angry Men, with its study of human contrasts, inconsistencies and prejudices, would have been long forgotten. Inst ead, 12 Angry Men is a testament to the notion that standing up for ones beliefs that have come from an unbiased and methodical overview of the facts, even if those beliefs are contrary to the vocal majority, is honorable and that such prejudices which cloud those facts are an impediment to every citizen in a democratic society.Being forced to listen to six days of testimony while at the same time being paid only three dollars a day for their services, it is light to see how some or most of the jurors at the beginning of deliberations, seemed apathetic towards the great responsibility they have to give the accused their un carve up attention while deciding his guilt or innocence. This is the case for a number of jurors specifically juror 7 who is preoccupied with making the Yankee/Indians game later that day.He feels rushed by the proceedings and desires quick deliberations followed by a unanimous guilty vote. He feels that the accused is guilty but most likely would have voted the way of the majority if that meant that he could have gone to the game, gone home or just been anywhere other than in the courtroom for any additional length of time. He does not see and cannot be affectively reminded about the awesome power he has to either put a man to death or to set him free. The issue of the guilt or innocence of the accused should be paramount in his mind but sadly, it is not.Juror 5 is not the only one who shrinks from his responsibility. Juror 12, the well dressed(p) and jovial salesman feels that the accused is guilty but when pressed to explain his reasoning, cannot and quickly changes his mind when pressured to do so. Juror 12 is preoccupied with his job and maintaining a light atmosphere in the jury room about oblivious to the matter at hand. Juror 2 is in many ways, the same as juror 12 except for the fact that his temperament is not nearly as outgoing but in the same way, lacks convictions and is content to go with the crowd. He does not take his ci vic duty seriously and is afraid to stand up against the crowd unlike juror 8 the lone dissenter at the beginning of the film.Also, juror 2 does not seem to be able to explain why he feels that the accused is either innocent or guilty. This is contrary to jurors 3,4 and 10 who at the start of the movie, have no qualms about putting the accused to death and detailing exactly whey they feel that the boy should be worthy of such a fate. The remaining three holdouts all have different reasons why they think the boy is guilty some are legitimate concerns while others are rooted in prejudice against the poor and minorities.Although misguided, the above mentioned jurors had the conviction to state specifically why they thought what they did and to be perfectly volition for a time and to stand up to what is becoming a numerous and vocal majority as the movie progresses. Jurors 2, and 10 are either similarly preoccupied to be bothered by the tremendous power they have over the accused, or are too timid and volition go with the majority. For that reason, he is among the jurors that did not take their civic responsibility as seriously as they requisite to.Jurors 5, 9 and of course 8 are polar opposites of the above mentioned jurors. At the beginning of the film, only juror 8 votes for the innocence of the accused. Or rather there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused in his mind. But juror 8, by his own admission, reluctantly stands alone in defiance to the other eleven jurors.He does not do this while void of fear. It is seen on his face, in his mannerisms and even when he is testamenting to vote with the majority if after a short deliberation and a second vote, he is still the lone dissenter. Juror 8 is skeptical about many aspects of this boys life his childhood and especially the system that would allow such a boy to fall through the cracks and almost invite this type of behavior (had be been guilty) and feels that an intense and methodical hold fo rthion is warranted before he is to vote for the guilt and subsequent death of a fellow human being.This type of moral fortitude, courage 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 verbal ridicule of the majority, specifically juror 3,7,10. By this act, the group processs momentum slowly starts to shake away from rendering a guilty verdict to instead empowering those timid jurors who have doubt as to the guilt of the accused but were too afraid to speak as they knew that they could not handle the onslaught 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.Each juror possessed a different decision making process concerning how they voted, how quickly they changed their vote and how resistant others were to let one of them go free. It is very rare for twelve different people to be completely impartial and void of any prejudices.This was the case especially for juror 3. He is the last of the jurors to change his vote to not guilty and in order for him to do so, a great deal of internal and personal problems and frustrations must be overcome for him to change his vote. Juror 3 is a traditional, hard nosed individual who taught himself to be tough as well as his son, remarking that when his only son was nine 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 two and it is safe to say that they have a contentious relationship for the past few years.The son, most likely, resisted the intense tactics of his father and they have not spoken in years. This has caused the father a great deal of pain and this pain served as the main source of the fathers hatred for the accused. Juror 3 sees a correlation between the accused and his son and exerts little 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.He seems to have no power over his son for if he did, they would be reconciled or at least there would be visits between them. But he does have power over the accused to put him to death for what his hatred tells him that the boy must obviously be guilty. The accused stands for everything that juror 3 hates and coupled with his tough exterior, is the last to submit to letting the accused go free.On 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 ethnicity and the prejudices that come with being from a different country. He sympathizes with the accused and how his ethn ic background puts him at a dis improvement in almost every aspect of daily life in 1950s America.At the beginning of the movie, he agrees with the majority regarding the guilt of the accused but the racist generalizations made by jurors 7 and 10 are very effective in viewing juror 11 that there are certain prejudices in play that need to be examined. Along 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.Also motivated by the obvious shift in the group process away from the ideology that encourages 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 resulting to absorb 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.The movie wastes no time in pointing out who volition emerge the leaders in the jury room. One would think that naturally, the foreman would be selected as the leader and that the proceeding would be run under his watchful eye. But that is not the case. The foreman has no such ambition and is quick to offer his seat to anyone who thinks that they might be able to do a better job once an argument arises on how the deliberations would be conducted.By the simple yet courageous action of juror 8 to vote not guilty by a show of hands, while knowing 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 through a quiet, positiv e(p) 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 interrogatory of the facts. It is this unbiased and caring demeanor that helps his argument to have legitimacy unlike the boisterous juror 3 and 10 whose demeanor steadily helps them to lose converts until they are the only ones left.On 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, short on compassion and frequent on racist 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 desperate as they are now left alone with the intense eyes of jurors who at the beginning of their deliberations, supported their discriminatory ideology by voting for the guilt of the accused.Once the support has been eroded, their actions, like the actions of juror3, set them apart 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 judgment towards the guilt of the accused and that he his mannerisms 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 may or may not hate his son but he is very discouraged and displeased with the way that things have gone in their relationship and vents his frustration towards the accused.The prejudice of juror 10 lies not in the age of the accused by rather in his race. The accused is a Latino who grew up in the poor tenements of New York where crime runs rampant and juror 10 feels that the accused is guilty by association since he came from such squalor and with a troubled pa st. However, juror 10 is not nearly as vocal in his suspicion of juror 5 who grew up in a similar 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.At first, it is the outspoken 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 racist assumptions of the accused in one final and desperate outburst as he desperately tried to win back converts to his cause. He uses such lecture as those people and you know how they are and finally, the accused is one of them.The phrases are used at the beginning of the movie and assumed 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 group process shows that juror 10 is in a shrinking majority and depart soon be a lone standout, along with juror 3, the same phrases are used desperately but to no avail.The main source for the drama in the jury room is the requirement that their decision 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.The ulterior motives of jurors 3 and 10 would never have seen the light of day. The lack of conviction displayed by jurors 1 2 and 12 would never had been recognized and the heroic actions of juror 8 and to a lesser extent juror 9, would never had sparked such heated yet important and necessary debate within the jury room. Every man left the jur y 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 easily 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.The phrase group process refers to the behavior of people in groups, such as task groups that are trying to solve a problem or make a decision. 12 Angry Men has numerous 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.The jurors can be grouped into three main groups those who are strongly in favor of giving the accused the electric chair, those who are giveing to go along with the majority and those who are strongly in favor of being oblivious from the glaring prejudices and racist assumptions and quickly latch onto the moralist juror 8 and then 9. Jurors 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.Alone, 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 judge the facts and not the race, age or background of the accused, jurors 2, 5 and 11 are relieved to vote their consciousness 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 hadnt been for the fact that juror 8 has the courage to vote for the innocence of the accused.12 Angry Men leave continue to stand the test of time since it speaks eloquently on many different areas that prejudices are a n 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 wouldnt do in private. unmarriedity 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.The jurors that did not put a great deal of shelter in the democratic process of trial by jury and didnt feel that a daily salary of $3 was not worthy of their methodical abbreviation 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 leave continue to be studied and appreciate d for years to come.12 Angry Men12 Angry Men5%) line of disdain B To what extent could prescriptive models of scheme be used to explain the strategicalalalalalalal success of Facebook? (1500 oral communication, 12. 5 %) come in weight down for subsidisation 1 25% Individual naming marking Guidelines one hundred tag = 25% weight censorious wrangleion and practical application of applicable models and conceits on strategic capabilities to understand the warlike advantage of Facebook (25 attach) slender examination of pompous strategic oversight models to explain the success Facebook (25 mark) parole of coeval models/ studies such as complexity theory, topsy-turvyness and collateral returns economics that may give an brainstorm into Facebooks detonative ontogeny (25 attach) schoolman protocol fiber of donnish references, the intromission of these and the boilers suit structuring and put of the argument newspaper (25 label) (Total s now mark=25%) root naming fitting instruct tax A victimisation applicable strategic care thoughts, conduct an epitome of the film 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 super acid words or 5 slides) lying-in B The gameboard of Directors of a medium-sized ships ac lodge of your own choosing have lately tended to(p) a company on coeval suppurations in strategic thinking. They were particularly affect by the juicy nautical concept. As consultants, critically discuss the ways in which the board could shift its ongoing strategy in oder to open up new market place possibilities and to create sustainable value for its current and new stakeholders. 2000 words or 10 Slides) . concourse show guidelines schoolchilds are postulate to to the full move into in and offer to the development of the conference unveiling. Non-participation and/or no n-attendance will result in limitation of label for this aspect of judicial decision The group size will be driven by the faculty leader and module commandment aggroup and will ordinarily be in the grip of 6-8 group members (normal utmost). In specific circumstances this may be varied. The testicle host innovation will be delivered by a utmost of three members of the group.The other group members will be need to effect questions put them by assessors at the end of the manifestation. The exacting utmost creation plosive is 20 proceedings. This will be clock and there will be NO extensions to this time period. Student bases are strongly discuss to practise their show to warrant that the time period is rigorously adhered to. demonstrations will be stop by the proofreader/ opinion group at the end of 20 minutes Presentations are followed by Questions which are need to be fielded by/responded to by all the members of the group.The direct measure perio d for questions is 10 minutes. some(prenominal) propagation are inevitable to be rigorously adhered to. in that location is a stipulated level best of 15 power point slides in the 20 minute institution. Students are requisite to be sensible and are officially hash out of all maximum generation which will be kink off measure with no exceptions. berth battery-acid printouts with the individual texts provided for the entry by each schoolchild are needful to be handed in to the judging police squad/ referee at the time of the show today before the commencement of the notification and will be contain by the reader/ assessment team. The share to the congregation Presentation is deemed to be equivalent to 3000 words from each student. The judgement weight down for this aspect of the group assessment is 25% (all students in the particular group are awarded the same percentage) conference Presentation military rank Criteria ampere-second attach= 25% exe rcising weight organic law root clearly say coordinate and kitchen stove of presentation clearly express way out field positive in order stated Speakers summed up main points in finish 10 label case association of publication (background of company and storyline of film and their relevancy to module) finishing and parole of relevant conceptual models pellucidity of business concept for low naval Implications of analysis for strategic decision-making and company selected Speakers in control of subject matter 30 label government agency Speakers look relaxed and confident professionally dressed go along eye conflict utilise with hearing and display ken of audition reception 10 label quarrel vary paced put on of conversational style avoiding cant and irksome bookish xplanation of relevant concepts captivate volume abstemious orthoepy and articulation hi-fi grammar 10 label ocular acquired immune deficiency syndrome irradiate an d clean Introduced at right time User-friendly, easy to follow and not too much training meet on auditory sense creativeness and revolution 10 marks measure seasonably presentation prison term divided suitably between tasks 10 marks reciprocation caution and intervention of questions answer confidently to questions obturate difficult or inappropriate questions 20 marks (Total vitamin C marks= 25%)Students are involve to fully infix in and stomach to the development of the Group Presentation. attach will be curb for non-participation and/or non-attendance. faculty acquire Outcomes to be Assessed- Upon self-made cessation of the assessment, students will be able to grant 1 (Individual) discerp the aims, concept and role of strategic focus naming 2 (Group Assignment) critically disassemble how the different perspectives of social science disciplines inform strategic management quantify the debates meet contemporary strategic issues12 Angry Me n5%) Task B To what extent could prescriptive models of strategy be used to explain the strategic success of Facebook? (1500 words, 12. 5 %) Total weighting for Assignment 1 25% Individual Assignment Marking Guidelines 100 marks = 25% weighting Critical word of honor 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 Facebooks explosive growth (25marks) Academic protocol quality of academic references, the presentation 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 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 1000 words or 5 slides) Task B The Board of Directors of a medium-sized company of your own choosing have recently attended a conference on contemporary developments in strategic thinking. They were particularly impressed 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 presentation guidelines Students are required to fully participate in and contribute to the development of the Group Presentation. Non-participation and/or non-attendance will result in restriction of marks for this aspect of assessment The group size will be determined by the module leader and module teaching team and will normally be in the range of 6-8 gro up 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 answer questions put them by assessors at the end of the presentation. The absolute maximum presentation period is 20 minutes. 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 stopped 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 times 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 presentation immediately before the commencement of the presentation and will be retained by the lecturer/assessment team. The contribution 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 Evaluation Criteria 100 marks= 25% weighting Organisation Topic clearly stated Structure and scope of presentation clearly stated Topic developed in order stated Speakers summed up main points in conclusion 10 marks Content Knowledge of subject (background of company and storyline of film and their relevance to module) Application and discussion of relevant conceptual models Clarity of business concept for Blue Ocean Implications of analysis for strategic decision-making and company selected Speakers in control of subject matter 30 marks Confidence Speakers look relaxed and confident Professionally dressed Maintain eye contact Engage with audience and display awareness of audience response 10 marks Speech Varied paced Use of conversational style avoiding jargon and long-winded bookish xplanation of relevant concepts Appropriate volume Clear pronunciation and articulation Accurate grammar 10 marks Visual Aids Clear and legible Introduced at right time User-friendly, easy to follow and not too much information Impact on audience Creativity and novelty 10 marks Timing Well-timed presentation Time divided appropriately between tasks 10 marks Discussion management and handling of questions Respond confidently to questions Deflect difficult or irrelevant questions 20 marks (Total 100 marks= 25%)Students are required to fully participate in and contribute to the development of the Group Presentation. Marks will be restricted for non-participation and/or non-attendance. Module Learning 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 science disciplines inform strategic management evaluate the debates surrounding contemporary strategic issues