12 Angry Men: Art of Persuation Essay

According to the oarlockal system of the United States, tout ensemble(prenominal) man put on trial is considered innocent until evincen dishonored. In the beginning of the movie theater 12 Angry Men, however, this theory can approximately be considered false to the jurywomans involved in a shoot case. This 18-year-old Italian male child from a slum is on trial for stabbing his produce to death. It is apparent that most jurors have already decided that the boy is blamable, and that they throw to return their verdict quickly, without even taking metre for discussion.However, unity juror, jurywoman octet, stands al wholeness against eleven others to convince them that the boy is non guilty, which have in minds that he needs to persuade 11 other jurors from all walks of life, each with his suffer agenda, fears, and mortalal demons. In order to do so, he must(prenominal) prove with enough valid take the stand that this boy is wrongfully acc employ of stamp out his father. Although this sounds like an impossible mission, he ultimately persuades the other 11 jurors to pitch their mind, with the rational inquirys he finds during the debate, and much important, the superior persuasion proficiencys.See more Is the Importance of being earnest a satirical play leavenTo sum up, jurywoman 8 expenditures incremental persuasion during the debate in the teentsy private room. When persuading, he does so nonpareil small musical none at a m. He gets the sojourn of jurors to agree to a small point, and then gets agreement on a notwithstanding smaller point. so another and another until he has got them to his final destination. The brilliant part of it is that juror octad makes each small point very easy to claim and as logical as possible so none of the rest can really object to it. The debate starts with the original round of take, in which all jurors except juryman Eight vote for guilty.After the first round of vote, he calls into he adland the accuracy and reliability of the only ii controles to the murder, the rarity of the murder weapon and the overall questionable circumstances. He further concludes that he cannot in good conscience vote guilty when he feels there is reasonable doubt of the boys guilt. However, it appears like juror Eight has no dash to kind his situation at all unless he can obtain additional support from any of the rest, and it is seemingly difficult to persuade one juror to be the first one changing his vote.At that point, juryman Eight subtly use a persuasion method called final request. By doing so, he simply completes his argument, and asks the jurors to do just one more thing. He then takes a courageous gamble that requests another anonymous vote. His proposal is that he will finish from voting, and if the other eleven jurors are still unanimous in a guilty vote, then he will acquiesce to their decision. The secret vote is held, and a new not guilty vote appears. juror so cial club becomes the first to support Juror 8, feeling that his points deserve further discussion. To continue, Juror Eight points out the first reasonable doubt.Based on his argument, one of the witnesses testimony, which claimed to have unwrapd the boy yell Im sack to kill you shortly before the murder took place, could not be do by as sound evidence. In this situation, the persuasion technique being used by Juror Eight is Plain Folks. He tries to sell the jurors a message as an ordinary person, and the jurors are to believe that because they feel that Juror Eight is just like them and can be trusted. Juror Eight states that he used to live very c digest to the rail, and he cannot observe anything while the train passes. then the old man is unlikely to hear the voices as clearly as he had testified. Also, he stresses that spate secernate something like Im going to kill you constantly at daily life further never literally mean it. Eventually, he persuades Juror 5, who had g rown up in a slum, to change his vote to not guilty. In addition, Juror Eight uses another scheme to question the witnesss other claim. Upon hearing the murder, the witness had gone to the entrance of his apartment and seen the defendant running out of the building. However, he had an injured leg which amputates his ability to walk.Juror Eight tries to persuade the jurors by using evidence this season. In order to maximize the evidences effect, he lets the audiences industrious and involved in a walking look into. Upon the end of the experiment, the jury finds that the witness wouldnt have made it to the door in enough time to actually see the defendant running out. And come to the conclusion that, judicial decision from what he heard earlier, the witness must have merely assumed it was the defendant running. At the same time, Juror Three, who looks irritated throughout the process, is to the highest degree to explode.Juror 8 cleverly catches the chance and applies the persu asion technique called restate bind to it. Double bind is a situation where a person has a choice (typically between two options), but whichever way they choose, they lose out, often with the same result. This situation may occur by chance, but in persuasion it is often carefully engineered by the persuader. He calls Juror Three a sadist, saying that he wants the defendant to die stringently for personal reasons rather than the facts. This led to Juror Threes explosion.He cant help shouting out Ill kill him And Juror Eight calmly retorts, You dont really mean youll kill me, do you? Thus proving the point he mentioned earlier. This eventually turns Juror two and Juror Six decide to vote not guilty, tying the vote at 6 to 6. This is absolutely a turning point in the film. At that time, every juror, no matter what his vote is, has started to realize Juror Eight might be eventually qualified of changing the verdict. Furthermore, Juror iv states that he doesnt believe the boys ali bi, which was being at the movies with a few friends at the time of the murder. Juror Eight then tests how well he can retrieve the events of previous days.Juror Eight uses a persuasion technique called countersign here. He focuses on cool logic and rational explanation to concrete his argument. When Juror Four only remembers the events of the previous five days, Juror Eight can easily draw to a conclusion that even an intellect person like Juror Four cannot remember every ace detail in his life. He continues to set up another presumptuousness the accused has a huge fight with his father, and he was accused by the police soon after he finds out his father is dead. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that he is under great emotional stress.With that saying, the jurors should not attribute the fact that he forgets the movies name as evidence that he kills his farther. Another question by Juror Two is that whether the accused, who was nearly a foot shorter than his farther, was able to stab him in such(prenominal) a way as to inflict the downward(prenominal) stab affront found on the body. Again, Juror Eight uses evidence by conducting an experiment to see if its possible for a shorter person to stab downward into a taller person. The experiment proves that its possible. This result probably is leading to jurors incline to guilty again.However, Juror quintet then explains the reverse use of a switchblade, that no one so much shorter than his oppositeness would have held a switchblade in such a way as to stab downward, as it would have been too awkward. With Juror Fives help, Juror Eight then continues to persuade the jurors by one of the most complex techniques in persuasion, reframing. This technique requires the person to step hold from what is being said and done and consider the frame. Then he leads people to consider alternative lenses, effectively saying lets look at it another way. And finally he changes attributes of the frame to reverse me aning.In this case, With Juror Fives word, Juror Eight successfully reframes the issue of the experiment as sound evidence that provides another reasonable doubt for the accused. This revelation augments the surety of several of the jurors in their belief that the defendant is not guilty. The last reasonable doubt is that the witness who allegedly saw the murder had marks in the sides of her nose, indicating that she wore glasses. To persuade Juror Four, Juror Eight tries to use the method called truth by association. He cannily asks Juror Four if he wears his eyeglasses to sleep, and Juror Four admits no one does.Here, in order to produce a convincing argument that something is true, Juror Eight first associates it with something else that is already accepted as true. He proves that the witness must wear glasses, and then explains that there was thus no reason to conduct that the witness happened to be wearing her glasses while trying to sleep, not to mention that the attack hap pened so swiftly that she would not have had time to put them on. According to these truths, Juror Four finally admits that there is reasonable doubt in the case and changes his vote as not guilty.Throughout the debate, Juror Eight always seeks to increase the significance of certain elements that he wants the jurors to take more seriously or see as particularly important. The persuasion technique applied here is repetition. He unendingly repeats sentences such as We are deciding on a mans life. , It is possible. , People can be wrong. and Are you sure? , and so forth The repetition of words not only causes it to become remembered (which is persuasive in itself), it also leads the jurors to accept what is being repeated as being true.With no doubt, by doing so, Juror Eight achieves the result he wants. In conclusion, this film shows how Juror Eights excellent persuasion skills can change others life. More important, while keeping his persuasion so effective, he has never done some thing unethical to persuade others, such as threating or lying. One of the insights that everyone should learn from this film is that one ought to stand up and exert his utmost efforts to fight for his point of his view. And with the powerful persuasion technique and the faith in ethic, everyone has the chance to make a difference.