Select Five Different Members of the Jury. What Arguments or Strategies Do Each of the Characters Use to Try to Convince Others That They Are Right?

1. Select five different members of the jury. What arguments or strategies do each of the characters use to try to convince others that they are right?

Juror# 8: The architect is a very patient and gentle man with a high conscience of what is right and wrong. He feels a high responsibility on how his bad judgment could send an innocent man to die. Therefore he is showing to the rest of the jury his feeling about it and at the same time is asking question to every juror in order to let them for themselves analyzed in details the evidence and why are they saying the young man is guilty without living space to a reasonable doubt. His strategy was asking questions and leasing carefully what others have to say.

Juror# 3: A business man and distraught father. During all the movie he shows a strong and bitter character. From the beginning he was arguing how simply was the case and saying that all the proof indicate he was guilty, It so obvious he said, with logical thinking. He was most of the time yielding to make his position leasing and accepted by the others. At the end we will know that his problems with his son are conducting his emotion against the young of the case.

Juror#10: This juror is a garage owner, like the juror #3 was a bitter man. He makes comments like "you know how these people lie! It's born in them! , he is a racist man, looks like he have had bad experience with immigrant workers in his garage, therefore, for him all immigrant people are drunk and don't care about the rest, saying that they don't have good feelings and kill people like something natural.

Juror# 9: The old man, the first one to support juror # 8 in recognition to his brave and honorable attitude. Later on the movie through an analytical explanation, revising the old man testimony in the court judgment he said that maybe the old is not saying the true, because he is trying to gain attention for the first time in his life. He describe an old man sad long life as an argument to lie, or maybe convince himself that what he is saying is true (even if is a lie). Also he would analyze later the testimony of the old lady, maybe without her glasses; she could not be able to see how she said she did. With this explanation he argues a reasonable doubt.

Juror# 11: The European, naturalized American citizen with a great sense of nationality, with a big proud of his new country. He argue in a rational thinking and analyzing the testimonies of the witnesses that is very doubted that the kid came back with his knife after killing his father, knowing that the police will arrest him.

2. What does the group define as the major issues to be resolved?

The group define as the major issue to be resolve either the young man is guilty or not of have killed his father with a knife. If there is any reasonable doubt to think he is not guilty after analyzing carefully all the witness proof and testimonies, the young man should not been send to die in the electric chair.

3. What impact is there with the all-male jury? Did gender affect the deliberations? The outcome? How? What would have changed if there had been women on the jury?'

In the 12 Angry men movie all the juror were men. In my opinion this important characteristic of the jury affect the way is driven the negotiation process but not much the result. At the beginning we can infer that because they are man, they have a cold heart and think rationally, without engage his emotions in their decision and because of the witness indicate the guilty of the boy is obvious that he kill his father. But with the running of time, they were showing the real motives of his decision, the one