In this review, I will be using this movie to make references to the book "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In", where author Roger Fisher talks about the principles needed for an effective negotiation.
In a particular scene from this movie, when Juror 2 and Juror 6 were questioned for their reasons for voting "guilty", they were unable to give concrete reasoning for their decision. They gave poorly substantiated answers such as "because I think he is" or "I do not know". As such, their inability to provide sound reasoning for their decisions led the others to question their credibility. Juror 8, on the other hand, was able to explain and demonstrate his argument well. For instance, he questioned the credibility of the testimony of the old man living downstairs, finding it hard to believe that the old man was able to reach the door in 15 seconds as claimed. To further substantiate his point, he even did a real-life demonstration by recreating the floor plan of the apartment and recording the time he took as he retraced the steps of the old man. Ultimately, they realized that the actual time taken was close to 30 seconds, far from the 15 seconds the old man had claimed, thus proving to and convincing the other jurors that the old man's claim was false while strengthening his stand that the boy was not guilty. The reason why Juror 8 was able to successfully convince the others is because according to Author Roger Fisher, he asserts that it is crucial to communicate our standpoints by providing concrete reasoning and explanation for our arguments in order to make them credible and convincing. Clearly explaining our interests adds significant impact to our reasoning, making our arguments more legitimate. Therefore, like what Juror 8 has done, providing substantiation for our arguments helps others understand where we are coming from and gives them strong reasons to concur with us.
In a particular scene from this movie, when Juror 2 and Juror 6 were questioned for their reasons for voting "guilty", they were unable to give concrete reasoning for their decision. They gave poorly substantiated answers such as "because I think he is" or "I do not know". As such, their inability to provide sound reasoning for their decisions led the others to question their credibility. Juror 8, on the other hand, was able to explain and demonstrate his argument well. For instance, he questioned the credibility of the testimony of the old man living downstairs, finding it hard to believe that the old man was able to reach the door in 15 seconds as claimed. To further substantiate his point, he even did a real-life demonstration by recreating the floor plan of the apartment and recording the time he took as he retraced the steps of the old man. Ultimately, they realized that the actual time taken was close to 30 seconds, far from the 15 seconds the old man had claimed, thus proving to and convincing the other jurors that the old man's claim was false while strengthening his stand that the boy was not guilty. The reason why Juror 8 was able to successfully convince the others is because according to Author Roger Fisher, he asserts that it is crucial to communicate our standpoints by providing concrete reasoning and explanation for our arguments in order to make them credible and convincing. Clearly explaining our interests adds significant impact to our reasoning, making our arguments more legitimate. Therefore, like what Juror 8 has done, providing substantiation for our arguments helps others understand where we are coming from and gives them strong reasons to concur with us.