Persuasion strategies in "12 Angry Men"

Convincing People -- 12 Angry Men

Angry Men may be the most famous American courtroom drama, though most of it is not even held in a courtroom. Beginning with the end of a trial and the judge's instructions to the jury, it seems that the Defendant is certainly going to the electric chair. Starting with an 11-1 vote for "guilty," the film slowly shows how a single juror named "Davis," who stands up for the Constitutional protection of "reasonable doubt," eventually persuades every other juror to vote "not guilty" along with him.

Which of Mr. Davis' strategies would have been most effective on you?

The strategy that would have been most effective on me as a fellow juror would be his very first strategy: "owing" it to the Defendant to at least discuss the issues and evidence because of the seriousness of the crime and penalty. That is a very reasonable request and it actually worked on the other jurors immediately. It's true that some of the other jurors did not like the idea but they all at least grudgingly went along with it because it was perfectly reasonable, would not be too inconvenient to any of them, and nobody could really come up with a good argument against just talking about the case for a little while.

b. Are there things he could have done differently to be more effective?

The "correct" answer to this question should probably be that Davis could have done things differently; however, after watching him maneuver and adjust and ultimately win every single juror over to "not guilty," there does not seem to be anything that he could have done differently to make himself more effective. He was so effective that he convinced everyone to agree with him. That is about as effective as a person can get.

ii. How is it compare to the approaches of the other jurors?

Several jurors handled conflict differently than did Davis. Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb) essentially came across as a bully, brow-beating and yelling at anyone who disagreed with him while the group was talking. Also, while the group was not together and he was one-on-one with another juror, he tried to persuade the juror to be on his side by saying he had no interest in the outcome but still insulting the "not-guilty" voters' reasoning. Juror #4 (Ed Begley) tried to handle conflict by insulting the person who disagreed with him, calling him "a kid" and complaining about how all this discussion was keeping him away from his business. Juror #1 (Martin Balsam) was the jury foreman and tried to be fair to all sides, until he was personally insulted, then withdrew and said,