'12 Angry Men: Art of Persuation Essay\r'

'According to the legal arrangement of the United States, all(prenominal) man put on trial is considered innocent until auditionn guilty. In the p arentage of the select 12 Angry Men, however, this theory puke almost be considered false to the jurors involved in a gain racing shell. This 18-year-old Italian boy from a slum is on trial for dig upbing his sky pilot to death. It is apparent that most jurors have already unconquerable that the boy is guilty, and that they plan to return their verdict quickly, with step forward raze taking measure for discussion.\r\nHowever, iodin juror, juror eighter from Decatur, stands solo against eleven otherwises to convince them that the boy is non guilty, which sum that he needs to rock 11 other jurors from completely walks of feeling, distri stillively with his own agenda, fears, and ad hominem demons. In order to do so, he must prove with decorous valid testify that this boy is wrongfully accused of killing his father. Although this sounds like an impossible mission, he ultimately persuades the other 11 jurors to change their mind, with the intelligent interrogatives he finds during the debate, and more important, the superior intellection techniques.\r\n plumetle more: Is the Importance of being earnest a satirical play essay\r\nTo sum up, juror octad uses incremental vox populi during the debate in the small private room. When persuading, he does so unmatched small step at a time. He gets the rest of jurors to agree to a small point, and therefore gets agreement on a march on small point. accordingly another and another until he has got them to his terminal destination. The brilliant part of it is that jurywoman ogdoad makes each small point very easy to take over and as logical as possible so none of the rest potbelly really inclination to it. The debate starts with the prototypal round of ballot, in which all jurors except juror eightsome vote for guilty.\r\n subsequently the first round of vote, he calls into school principal the truth and reliability of the only dickens knowledgees to the murder, the rarity of the murder weapon and the overall questionable circumstances. He push concludes that he displacenot in good conscience vote â€Å"guilty” when he feels there is bonny interrogative of the boy’s guilt. However, it looks like juror Eight has no way to change his situation at all unless he can obtain supererogatory support from any of the rest, and it is obviously difficult to persuade one juror to be the first one changing his vote.\r\nAt that point, juror Eight subtly use a persuasion method called last(a) request. By doing so, he simply completes his stemma, and asks the jurors to do secure one more thing. He because takes a bold gamble that requests another anonymous vote. His design is that he will abstain from voting, and if the other eleven jurors are still unanimous in a guilty vote, then he will enter to t heir decision. The secret ballot is held, and a new â€Å"not guilty” vote appears. juryman Nine becomes the first to support juryman 8, feeling that his points deserve further discussion. To continue, jurywoman Eight points step up the first dry landable question.\r\nBased on his argument, one of the witnesses’ testimony, which claimed to have hear the boy yell â€Å"I’m individualnel casualty to kill you” shortly before the murder took place, could not be treated as sound evidence. In this situation, the persuasion technique being used by Juror Eight is Plain Folks. He tries to consider the jurors a message as an ordinary person, and the jurors are to believe that because they feel that Juror Eight is plainly like them and can be trusted. Juror Eight states that he used to live very plastered to the rail, and he cannot hear anything while the train passes.\r\n hence the old man is unlikely to hear the voices as clearly as he had testified. Als o, he stresses that slew say something like â€Å"I’m liberation to kill you” constantly at daily life but never literally think up it. Eventually, he persuades Juror 5, who had grown up in a slum, to change his vote to â€Å"not guilty. ” In addition, Juror Eight uses another scheme to question the witness’s other claim. Upon hearing the murder, the witness had at rest(p) to the door of his apartment and memorisen the defendant running game out of the building. However, he had an injured leg which amputates his ability to walk.\r\nJuror Eight tries to persuade the jurors by using evidence this time. In order to maximize the evidence’s effect, he lets the audiences engaged and involved in a walking experiment. Upon the end of the experiment, the jury finds that the witness wouldn’t have made it to the door in enough time to actually see the defendant running out. And come to the conclusion that, judging from what he hear earlier, the wi tness must have merely mistaken it was the defendant running. At the analogous time, Juror Three, who looks harassed throughout the process, is about to explode.\r\nJuror 8 cleverly catches the chance and applies the persuasion technique called double fix 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 case. This situation may occur by chance, but in persuasion it is often carefully engineered by the persuader. He calls Juror Three a sadist, verbalism that he wants the defendant to die purely for personal reasons rather than the facts. This led to Juror Three’s explosion.\r\nHe can’t help cheering out â€Å"I’ll kill him! And Juror Eight calmly retorts, â€Å"You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you? ” Thus proving the point he mentioned earlier. This eventually turns Juror Two and Juror half a dozen decide to vote â €Å"not guilty”, ligature the vote at 6 to 6. This is absolutely a turning point in the picture show. At that time, all(prenominal) juror, no matter what his vote is, has started to realize Juror Eight might be eventually undefendable of changing the verdict. Furthermore, Juror Four states that he doesn’t believe the boy’s alibi, which was being at the movies with a few friends at the time of the murder. Juror Eight then tests how well he can remember the events of previous days.\r\nJuror Eight uses a persuasion technique called logos here. He focuses on cool logic and rational explanation to cover his argument. When Juror Four only remembers the events of the previous quintet days, Juror Eight can easily hound to a conclusion that even an intellectual person like Juror Four cannot remember every single detail in his life. He continues to set up another premise: the accused has a huge fight with his father, and he was accused by the police soon after he fi nds out his father is dead. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that he is under great emotional stress.\r\nWith that saying, the jurors should not associate the fact that he forgets the movie’s hear 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)(prenominal) a way as to inflict the downwards stab wound found on the body. Again, Juror Eight uses evidence by conducting an experiment to see if it’s possible for a shorter person to stab downward into a taller person. The experiment proves that it’s possible. This result probably is leading to juror’s fling to â€Å"guilty” again.\r\nHowever, Juror Five then explains the do use of a switchblade knife, that no one so much shorter than his opponent would have held a switchblade in such a way as to stab downward, as it would have been too awkward. With Juror F ive’s help, Juror Eight then continues to persuade the jurors by one of the most multiplex techniques in persuasion, reframing. This technique requires the person to step stand from what is being said and done and consider the frame. Then he leads people to consider alternative lenses, efficaciously saying ‘let’s look at it another way. ‘ And ultimately he changes attributes of the frame to pilfer meaning.\r\nIn this case, With Juror Five’s word, Juror Eight successfully reframes the outcome of the experiment as sound evidence that provides another reasonable doubt for the accused. This revelation augments the certainty of several of the jurors in their tone that the defendant is not guilty. The last reasonable doubt is that the witness who allegedly saw the murder had mark in the sides of her nose, indicating that she wore furnish. To persuade Juror Four, Juror Eight tries to use the method called truth by association. He cannily asks Juror Four if he take overs his eyeglasses to sleep, and Juror Four admits no one does.\r\nHere, in order to produce a convincing argument that something is true, Juror Eight first associates it with something else that is already evaluate as true. He proves that the witness must wear glasses, and then explains that there was thus no reason to expect that the witness happened to be wearing her glasses while trying to sleep, not to mention that the coming happened 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 â€Å"not guilty”.\r\n end-to-end the debate, Juror Eight always seeks to increase the moment of certain elements that he wants the jurors to take more severely or see as particularly important. The persuasion technique applied here is repeating. He interminably repeats sentences such as â€Å"We are deciding on a man’s life. â₠¬Â, â€Å"It is possible. ”, â€Å"People can be wrong. ” and â€Å"Are you sure? ”, etc. The repetition of words not only causes it to become remembered (which is coaxing in itself), it also leads the jurors to accept what is being ingeminate as being true.\r\nWith no doubt, by doing so, Juror Eight achieves the result he wants. In conclusion, this film shows how Juror Eight’s excellent persuasion skills can change other’s life. more important, while keeping his persuasion so effective, he has never done something 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 last-place 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.\r\n'