12 ANGRY MEN

30 th June 30,

2015
[Submitted by: Pushkar Kumar Singh 15P100]

The prominent barriers to communication as depicted in the movie

are:
JUROR 1
Started acting as a moderator but could not manage the discussion later. He also lost
interest at some times after having disagreement with fellow juror. He had been a poor
listener and a poor moderator.

JUROR 2
Juror 2 did not have any thoughts of his own. During the voting, raising his hand after
seeing everyone, and could not been able to speak up when asked for his views suggests
that he does not have his own ideas and stand.

JUROR 3
Juror 3 had have prejudice since the beginning because of his personal life issues with his
son. This strong view of his made him non-receptive and often unnecessarily very
aggressive during most of the discussion. He was verbose many a times when he spoke.

JUROR 4
Juror 4 lacked analytical ability to discuss the case in detail. He firstly called the
accused testimony as flimsy which was later contradicted by his own arguments. He also
showed lack of clarity and detailed analysis in his points.

JUROR 5
Juror 5 lacked confidence while presenting himself. Firstly, he didnt put up any reasoning
and passed his turn. Later he defended the pre conceived notions of the other juror about
people hailing from the slums.

JUROR 6
Juror 6 did not have the clarity in his points and could not analyze the case properly. He
was being corrected by others while quoting the facts in the delivery of his view.

 JUROR 7
Juror 7 showed lack of interest and a lot of bias against the accused. He did not put his
points properly, stood up and started talking casually. Such a wrong body language
from a juror was reflecting his insincerity and was also affecting the discipline in the
discussion.

JUROR 9
Juror 9, the oldest of all the jury, did not contribute much, but played a major role by
changing his stand from guilty to not-guilty so as to extend the discussion and make a
proper decision hence forth.

JUROR 10
Juror 10 showed a highly biased and racist mentality, he put forth some illogical points
such as raising up of a child in slums, and other discriminatory views to prove the
accused guilty. This strong negative belief and attitude made him adamant to his stand till
the very end of the discussion. It also showed his poor listening skills and poor acuity.

JUROR 11
Juror 11 had pre conceived notions in the beginning, but showed good understanding
and agility later on and changed his vote to not guilty. He appreciated democracy and
showed his interest to bring in justice to the accused.

JUROR 12
Juror 12 showed the most lack of interest in the whole discussion. He was found doodling
and discussing about marketing techniques, which was totally irrelevant to the case. His
attitude reflected lack of collaboration and insincerity towards the jury and the case.

Skills showed by Juror 8 to make a successful conversation, and hence

to convince others:
JUROR 8
Juror 8 stood up as an ideal juror, having no bias, no preconceived notions, no
other form of discriminations and always open to discuss the case. He showed a
great interest in discussing the case rather than jumping to the conclusion like others. He
had been a great listener, an observer and a critic throughout the discussion. He was
open to others view and also contradicted them if they were incorrect. His challenge
to the testimony of the witnesses, and putting forth calculated and logical assumptions
showed his great analytical skills. He was always cogent and convincing, which was
2

evidently seen in the transformation of the views of the other jury members. All these
qualities made him able to change everyones view and reach a consensus.