Guilty camp juror 3 2 not guilty camp juror 8 guilty

This preview shows page 2 - 5 out of 8 pages.

Guilty camp: Juror 3 2.Not guilty camp: Juror 8Guilty Camp: Juror 3The three persuasive tactics deployed by juror 3 are as follows: 1.Attacking people directly 2.Yelling and intimidation3.Personal appealAttacking people directly 2
Group 26 12 Angry Men Analysis continued Juror 3 attacked people directly trying to make them feel badly and recognize his authority. He did this when he talked, mockingly, about how juror 5 grew up in the slums,and how he must understand what it is like for kids who come from rough neighborhoods. He also told the old man he could not hear because he was so old. This was not effective in keeping people on his side because people felt alienated by his animosity. Yelling and intimidation Juror 3 also used yelling and intimidation as a tactic to try to get people to vote guilty. Hethreatened to kill Juror 8, and yelled at people when they switched their vote. He did not try to persuade them back to his side using logic, but instead yelled at them for making, what he perceived to be, the wrong choice. This was very ineffective because he made some jurors keep their vote at not guilty, based on their ill feelings towards him, even in spite of their doubts.Personal appealFinally, Juror 3 tires to persuade the other jurors to vote guilty through personal appeal, mainly by talking about his son. Early on, he tells the story of how his son ran away froma fight at a young age, and how ashamed he was of his weakness. He discuses how disrespectful kids are today and how “they are all the same”. Ultimately, this was unsuccessful because this appeal was based on a skewed perception, and fell apart dramatically when he ripped up the picture of his son.Not guilty camp: Juror 8The three persuasive tactics deployed by Juror 8 follows: 1.Personal encouragement 2.Logic3.Visuals and examplesPersonal encouragementJuror 8 made an effort to connect with the other jurors on a personal level. One way he did this was though subtle touches when he grabbed the old mans arm or touched the working man’s shoulder. Also, listening to the jury foreman talk about coaching football created a connection, which helped changed the foreman’s vote. The added personal element to the discussion of the facts and case, successfully helped to change the votes ofseveral jurors. LogicJuror 8 used logic to create reasonable doubt. For example, he explains his doubt about the testimony of the old man being able to hear the boy yell "I'm going to kill you" while the L-train was going past the window, and does so step-by-step. He discussed the amount of time it takes for an L-train to pass the window and how loud it would have been. This helped the other jurors see past their emotions and initial impressions about the case. This was a successful tactic because people started to think more deeply and become more involved in the deliberation. 3
Group 26 12 Angry Men Analysis continued Visuals and examplesJuror eight establishes that it is possible that the boy told the truth about the switch knife, by purchasing and bringing in an exact replica of the knife in question. This showed the jurors how easy it is to find that kind of knife. When juror eight stated the hypothetical of

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture