Donald Kumah
Managing People & Organization Spring '14
12 Angry Men Video Analysis This movie has really made me come into terms that we ought to put things that we hear or see into perspective. Especially in the likes of our judicial system, all possible avenues have to be revisited before a decision that will drastically change another man's life is made. As the juror sat down in the beginning of the movie to cast their unanimous vote of guilty to convict the boy accused, the architect or juror number 8, thought that perhaps there were distortions in the evidence to find the accused guilty. Now here stands one person against 11 other jurors as he hopes to influence the rest of his peers into seeing why there aren't enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Throughout the movie there were many influence techniques used by the jurors to convince their peers of their stance. Here are some examples of influential techniques utilize by the jurors.
1. Coalition Building - The architect feels as though there is doubt all the evidence presented and that maybe they should talk it out and see if there could be a gray area.
2. Consultation - The architect many times asks different jurors about their own personal experiences and correlates that to the current situations. One example is with the juror that wore glasses and leaving a mark on his nose.
3. Exchange - Architect initially asks for a special vote by secret with him being omitted after presenting some ideas of reasonable doubt. If they all vote guilty he would then go with the guilty verdict.
4. Ingratiating - Architect kept insisting that they were right and that evidence were sufficient but always requested other theories. He always agreed with the jurors but offered other motives and maybes and what ifs.

5. Inspiration - The kid looks guilty on the surface but it could go deeper. If the kid committed murder, why would he come back to a murder scene
6. Pressure - Juror 3 constantly shouts and tells them to listen to the fact presented to them from testimonies.

7. Reason - The architect tested the theory of the old man walking 15 seconds to open the door to see the boy running down the steps when in fact it should've taken him about 46 seconds or so.
8. Claiming legitimacy - One of the jurors alludes to the fact that how could they see the kid not guilty when his own lawyers think he didn't stand a chance. The Architect or Juror 8 is so much more influential than the others because