Words-786 Decision Making Trap

From 12 Angry Men Movie

1. Understanding decision making trap

Movie Character:

Anchoring Trap (Juror 10)

He was a wise old man who firstly decided that the kid was guilty. He assumed the boy
as a slum kid. He made his internal attributions and related it with his belief that there’s
something bad about slum kids as they don’t care about human lives. He was just making
his internal attributions true toward the boy. From the movie we can clearly understand it.

He said, “We heard the facts...You can’t believe a word they say you know that...They
are born liars!
Status Quo Trap (Juror 1)

From the very beginning he gave the vote to "guilty". After some arguments he changed
his mind, when he saw that not guilty became the position of the majority. He did not
give any explanation for the reason why he made his choice but he tried to be fair at the
end of the decision making.

Sunk Cost Trap (Juror 2)

The juror 2 was quiet and easily persuaded by other opinions without knowing the
decision was right or wrong. When juror 1 asked him to justify his verdict, he had no
concise neither relevant explanation to defend his statement perfectly except past
decisions. He simply voted for guilty by believing that somebody saw the boy during the
murder.

Confirmation Trap (Juror 3)

Juror 3 made more internal attributions for the boy’s behavior. He behaved like a public
avenger and self-appointed than court-appointed because the juror is ignoring evidence
that raises reasonable doubt. One of his dialogues from the movie,

Juror 3: "I've got a kid...when he was sixteen, we had a fight...I haven't seen him in
three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out (but it's no use)"

He uses the actions of his son towards him as an anchor around which his arguments
revolve. That is how his past experience prevented him from making a logical decision.

2. Example for both advocacy and inquiry

Advocacy example would be juror 4. The ability to remain independent proves to be the
most important character trait 4th jury but he did not try to persuade others to change
their minds forcibly. He never let other juror pressures in his decision making.

The inquiry juror was juror 8(high-quality inquiry). He thoughtfully sought the evidence
even there eleven voted to “guilty”. For example, he said, “It’s not easy to raise my hand
and send a boy off to die without talking about it first”.
 3. Decision Making

Well Defined Criteria:

At the beginning stage of the movie juror 8 voted to “not guilty”. He was the only juror
who made his decision against eleven jurors who voted to “guilty". He used his
philosophy positively to make a fair decision. Such determination (non-guilty decision)
has brought to an issue of re-deliberation of the case. He dealt with several arguments and
showed his strong views. Even when he found the case was complicated, he never
compromised to think the case as a game. He always pointed out the reasonable doubt
about the problem and defined them consciously. A meaningful change in the case was
created, when he ensured the falsify of the witness one(The old man). Finally, his precise
delivery made of the case to end. Thus, the right decision executed after the twelve men
convinced rational- thinking based judgment.

Assumption testing:

Juror 5 did an assumption test concerning the use of a switchblade knife which helped the
jurors to better understand the concept of how the fatal wound was inflicted. He
explained vital information the juror 8 about his own life experiences. His information
used as a guide to making a comparison and gave various points of view to this case.

Dissent & debate

The juror did not make the decision until all jurors convinced to think the boy is not
guilty. For this they unremittingly argued about reasonable doubts and debate to reach a
solution.

Justification to choice this film

I cannot make the access the film “Thirteen Days”. I choose this film because the main
idea of this movie is to display and determine whether those men have acted as a team
and to analyze whether they are practicing the group dynamics as they weighed
testimony, evidence and personal agendas. From the beginning of the movie an argument
took place between 12 members of the jury based on a murder trial. The decision initially
was guilty verdict meaning death for the accused, an inner-city teen. Those jury members
gave their opinion, used their judgment, express their considerable doubt and conflict
with each other to make the decision as well as to decide the boy’s fate.