Section A – Member Roles
One very particular juror in 12 Angry Men is the juror no. 8. As the author of the movie described him, he is a quiet man, who sees all sides of every question and always seeks truth (Rose, ). In the body of the jury, this juror no. 8 portrays the role of convincing the rest of the 11 members to truly look at the case before making a final decision on whether the boy – who is sent to the court for being accused of a crime – is guilty or not. Throughout the play, he continually presented various considerations for every given testimony from the proclaimed witnesses. He did this until the end so that others would consider that the accused may not be guilty at all. One particular part of the play that manifested this is the argument on the evidence of the knife, which was used to stab the murdered father. Juror no. 4 made reasonable arguments that the boy killed his father with that knife. He included that the storekeeper even testified of selling to the boy that knife. Juror no. 3 even compelled the other jurors to listen to him since his arguments makes sense. However, juror no.8 still insisted that the boy might lost the knife, having others picked it up and went to stabbed the boy’s father or that the killer had the same knife. He claimed that it is possible. Soon, he made all of the jurors’ argument about the knife being the best evidence since they believed that there’s no other knife similar to the boy’s. He did so by showing them another knife which is exactly the same as the knife used in the murder. Juror no. 8 doesn’t immediately make final positions without absolute assurance. Rather, he seeks [and let others seek] the truth by making reasonable arguments for each accusation, and by proving these arguments as well.
Section B – Assertive Communication Behavior
Juror no. 8 has an assertive communication behavior. Being assertive is being self-assured to bring out something. It is having confidence to say and to support a statement. One particular example of this is the argument on the scenario when a testifier said that he heard the boy shouting “I’m going to kill you.” He reasoned out that this statement, when used, doesn’t absolutely mean that murder will really take place. Moreover, he even reasoned out that shouting out that statement loudly for the whole neighborhood to hear before murdering a person is unreasonable. Juror no. 8 shows assertiveness here by first and foremost bringing out his opinions. He doesn’t keep quiet. Second, he made the arguments clearly. Third, he allowed others to share their opinions though they do not [immediately] agree with his argument. He is not using force to let others agree but makes himself connected to others within the discussion, making them use their reasons. Fourth, he has a calm tone of voice. And lastly, he shows competence in his assertion, relentlessly compelling everyone to reflect what he says.
Section C – Style of Managing Conflict
Throughout the entire play, Juror no. 8 managed the conflict in their discussion by collaborating to deal with it. One particular scenario in the play that manifests this is the case of a woman, who was said to be wearing glasses, testifying on the murder. It was juror no. 6 who initiated the discussion on this case upon knowing that juror no. 2 couldn’t see the clock clearly without glasses. Then, together with the foreman, he points to the woman who testified that she saw the murder when she was already in bed. And he added, knowing that juror no. 2 doesn’t wear glasses when he goes to bed, that the woman wouldn’t be wearing glasses. Now the conflict management style of juror no. 8 is manifested here when he complimented the assertion of juror no. 6. He collaborated with the discussion and did not merely keep silent. He supported the assertion by making the argument more reasonable and clearer for everyone.
References
Rose, R. (1983). Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men: A play in three acts. Woodstock, IL: Dramatic Publishing. Print.
