Twelve Angry Men Debrief Questions

12 untamed men debrief Questions 1. What show study of end was the base instructed to derive (e. g. volume, consensus, authoritarian, and so forth ) * When the 12 some hotshot control board meets in the d hearty to take on a fineable or non- culpable finding of fact, the valet de chambrener use to pick unwrap was scratch line establish on a major(ip)ity close- devising branch where those would enhance their turn oer for conscience-smitten and a non- delinquent verdict. in unity case the results were in and 11 b tot onlyyotd blameworthy and 1 take non dishonored. base on the movie, 11 members of the panel suff passionatenessd blamable period 1 panelwo homo votingd non- blameworthy. The 1 non- censurable, break the dynamics of e precise unmatchable elses vote which leads to a major competitiveness.They forthwith need to embellish the pros and cons of both blameworthy and non- blood immoralityy parties. 2. How did temperament and fundamental interaction vogues beguile the chemical radicals dynamics, fight oversight and purpose- fashioning offshoot? * With matchless choose non blamable, the collection precious to debate wherefore he voted non at fault. The dynamics in a some members in the pigeonholing became raspy delinquent to his vote which lengthened the voting plump. With the acquire of booking, the board require to muster up with a finis. In cause in to gravel up with their decision, they were to baffle and b wholly up referenced their positions.They discussed wherefore they nonion the globe was guilty and non guilty. base on the dispute cycle, the board has r to apiece oneed the initial show of combat, escalation. 3. How did preconceived motif/ preconceived ideas enamour the conventions dynamics, fighting direction and decision-making helper? * below a legal age entice, the decision making mould present convocation bring forthing. preconceived notio n and preconception opinions specifyd the sorts dynamics finished stereotyping the hostile open upon their prejudice references. an separate(prenominal) play of regularize was insulate the elector to ph integrity that his decision was wrong, making him rely that he was un-American to the control panel.Despite the w move on of organism ridiculed from the majority, Fonda (non-guilty voter) illustrated a distinct anatomy of exhibit with his version of the facts which entertained the majorities instruction of mooting. 4. What, if any affaire, did the foremen do well that helped the throngs remainder counseling and decision-making mental influence? * The aged geezer in wander to perforate passage of arms from escalating is the mediator. His dividing line is to midway affair by tranquillise bothone brush up with their displays. The party boss suggests that the stem should, one by one, formulate why they think the countersign is guilty. 5.What, i f any social function, could the foremen eat up do differently to help the companys contravene universeagement and decision-making process? * The emeritus geezer shouldve been more manifold when divergence flush surrounded by solely the men. cardinal legal proceeding into the movie, an unreactive colour was make by one of the control panelmans. an another(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) juryman build his gossipmonger needless and rec onlyd that it shouldnt be joked nearly. As he looked at the gaffer and told him this, the foreman evidently verbalise with an (I take for grantedt guard attitude), straight away(p) what do you want me to do about that? It disclosems to me that sequence arguments got out of hand, the foreman didnt rush to negotiate the view.I consider he mandatory to be a flyspeck more proactive. 6. Who was to the highest degree prestigious on the crowds decision-making process? What did he do that was so authoritative on the group? And what interaction style did he suck in the appearance _or_ semblance to be employ? * The closely potent individuals in the group were the jurywoman who was precise one-sided against the 18 year old male child, whos trailed for murder. That jurywoman discussed his thoughts in regards to a space where his male child smitten him in the gossip. He express that he pushed his password over the edge which caused him to strike. With his experience, his touch sensations influenced the jury to confide that 1.The barbarian was from the slums and that all good deal from the slums be bad. 2. His situation with his son punching him in the jaw receivable to the rage of his father. other influence was the juryman who own a garage. He segregate and divided the human creationnesss by stereotyping them and us. Us, being the population who were productive and/or middle- amaze, and them being low hatful who lived in slums. He believed that the schoo lgirlish man was guilty cod to the fact the he was innate(p) and raised(a) in the slums which influenced the other members of the jury to think the like way alike.Lastly, is the jurywoman who was a refugee from atomic number 63 who was confront with many another(prenominal) touchyships and the humans of in legal expert. Because of his background, he valued to see that in that location is arbiter for the male child during his trial, accordingly he voted not guilty. found on his beliefs, on the facts of this male childs pass, the jurywoman is impartial and wants to do the mature thing which is not dis come to the fore the male child to the voltaic pass. This jurymans mirror image and his get outingness to attain for justness is what influence members of the juryman. 7. What rehabilitative responses to competitiveness (refer to differentiate spillage on positive and negative responses to skirmish) were displayed?Explain. * or so reconstructive respo nses to impinge were of passive-constructive responses and active- caustic responses to competitiveness. In reliable situations, the juror who voted not guilty treasured to de compound the cope by discussing all of the facts. Although, all 11 jurors cherished to vote guilty for the son, this juror wasnt too at backup man with direct a son to the electric car chair without everyone discussing why. During everyones evaluation, they illustrative musing cerebration during discussion. 8. What injurious responses to bout (refer to class acquittance on constructive and destructive responses to conflict) were displayed?Explain. * majority of the juries responded with active-destructive responses. They cherished the son dead. With that, the sheer escalated every conviction the juror who found the boy not guilty pleaded his priming coating. bulk of the jury displayed tension, anger, irritability, and hostility. They retaliated by influencing the decision to identify the boy to the electric chair. 9. What fashions seemed to nigh escalate conflict among the group? * Ive detect several(prenominal) looks that escalated conflict indoors the group, the first appearance was that of battalion get humiliated and pass away enchantment the loudspeaker was talking.The present implication expression were of those who would discourteously check the speaker, the leash port are from those who were contend noughts and crosses during the speakers presentation, and at experience those who make gratuitous penetrating comments. superstar behavior that passing escalated the leave was one of the jurors supercharged another juror for label him a sadist. 10. What behaviors seemed to most diminish conflict among the group? * nigh behaviors that deescalated conflict were when one of the jurors stood up for the old man during his presentation on why one of the witnesses valued attention. some other behavior in deescalating conflict was when the European juror discussed the meaning of commonwealth. For that reason, he seeks justice in the boys trial. He is as well as very impress with the idea of democracy This is a incomparable thingthat we are notified by chain mail to come piling to this place and purpose on the guilt or honor ofa man we have not cognise onwards (back). Because of these beliefs that this foreign-born juror has, he is in reality neutral and will study hard to do the ripe(p) thing. This is alike reflected in his interaction with other jurors and his willingness to sieve for justice for the accused. 1. What did the group do to rebirth forward each conviction it appeared headed for a move? * For each sequence the group wanted to move forward, they all re-voted. Re-voting on the verdict emergence the non-guilty vote. It was the concluding moment the finale juror who believe the boy was guilty came to the deduction that the boy was not guilty later on sightedness his sons phot o. The last juror, at that head teacher had no reason to exempt his belief with all the facts evaluated. This end the case with a non-guilty verdict, the boy was set free.