In the movie, "12 Angry Men", an 18-year-old boy from the slums is accused of stabbing his father to death. His fate is to be decided by 12 male jurors, and the odds are initially stacked against him 11-1. Yet, by the end of the movie, we see the entire jury swayed in the opposite direction, unanimously passing a "not guilty" verdict, a result of Juror 8's heroics. With reference to the book "Getting to Yes", I will discuss 5 issues regarding negotiation that surfaced in Jury Room 208A that saw Juror 8's crusade in getting to "not guilty".
The first issue worth highlighting was the task of separating people from the problem. This suggestion in "Getting to Yes" predicates on the idea that every negotiator holds dual interests: in the substance and in the relationship. As much as Fisher, Ury & Patton (2011) stress the importance of establishing a working relationship, such a notion seems impractical in Jury Room 208A where 12 complete strangers embark on a onetime task to reach a consensus on a verdict. Without the sentiment of previous acquaintance or the incentive of future relations, it made sense for the jurors to enmesh people with the problem by tackling them both at once. Fisher, Ury & Patton (2011) posit that such a conflation could lead to the perception of objective statements as personal attacks. In light of Juror 8's comment on his unease to vote 'guilty' so hastily, Juror 7 reacts defensively, asking "who says it's easy for me?". Clearly, Juror 7 had cast Juror 8's comment in a self-righteous light, hence perceiving his comments as a personal attack on his questionable conscience. Juror 7, as a result, was polarized from the "not guilty" position for an extended period of time due to the entrenchment of his emotions with their position. Hence, due to the lack of motivation to establish a working relationship in the given context, separating people from the problem became a challenge, and wounded feelings even from the beginning due to the misinterpretation of intentions, stifling the negotiations.
However, despite the improbability of separating people from the problem in such a context, Juror 8 deals directly with the people problem adeptly. Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) claim that if parties are disengaged with the process, they are less inclined to support the outcome. In light of that, Juror 8 conscientiously involves the other jurors in reenactments, inviting their opinions on issues raised during the adjudication process. This gradually wins the other jurors over, especially those who had no strong reason to vote "guilty", converting their position to "not guilty" and conferring them a reason to consolidate their position. Hence, Juror 8 masterfully tackles the people problem before the substance of the problem by aligning their perceptions with his.
The next issue worth highlighting was the task of focusing on interests, not positions. "12 Angry Men", filmed in monochrome, seemingly parallels the black-and- white dynamics of the decision the jury has to make: guilty or not guilty-there is no privilege of compromise. However, Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) suggest that interests are what motivate people to form positions. Beneath the façade of this steely dichotomy lies a multitude of interests held by the 12 jurors, be it the interests of time, justice, peer pressure or for Juror 3, a vendetta.
In an earlier scene in the movie, Juror 3 reveals that he has an estranged son as a result of the former's harsh treatment. He struggles to come to terms with his failure as a parent and owing to the estranged nature of the relationship, closure seems to be out of his control. In the ending of the 1957 film version of "12 Angry Men", Juror 3 collapses in tears, ripping a photograph of his son apart after he fails to convict the defendant. This suggests that Juror 3 sought to attain closure by punishing the defendant as an atoning sacrifice, since he matched the profile of his son. This attempt to take control of his life is claimed by Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) to be one of the basic human needs, hence forming powerful interests. However, the jury had failed to look beyond his positions and take into account his interests, dismissing Juror 3's brief soliloquy, saying "we're missing the point here", and choosing to focus on positions instead as they were in the midst of stating their "guilty/not guilty" votes. Should Juror 3's interests have been addressed much earlier, it could have led to a better understanding of his obstinance and could have fostered a stronger mutual understanding, in turn reduced the observed polarization. Thus, even though Juror 3 held the strongest position, it was undergirded by equally powerful interests that if addressed, would have expedited the negotiation.
Another issue pertaining to negotiation was inventing possibilities. Jury Room 208A is locked as the jury weighs in on the case, seemingly suffocating, and further stifling creative energy. However, Juror 8 notably zones out while looking out the window before he is beckoned to sit at the table when the discussion begins, foreshadowing his ability to think outside the box. Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) note the importance of inventing options due to the propensity for deadlocks to occur when two opposing positions square off. There are theoretically no options other than "guilty" or "not guilty" but Juror 8 transcends the assumptions of a fixed by inventing options in the understanding of how the alleged murder had unfolded. Jury Room 208A is symbolically unlocked only twice during the discussion, both times when evidence is brought in to be reviewed. Both times, in the case of the switch knife and the elderly witness' statement, Juror 8 managed to widen the considerations of the jury by inventing possibilities, such as the duplicity of the knife and the speed of the elderly man. Juror 8 did not necessarily change their mind, but invented possibilities for them to move toward reasonable doubt. As a result, Juror 8 was able to ease the rest of the jury into casting reasonable doubt over their "guilty" verdict, and eventually swayed the jury due to his invention of possibilities.
Insisting on an objective standard is also a central issue regarding negotiation. Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) argue that insisting on objective criterion allow negotiators to make decisions based on principle, rather than pressure. In an enclosed room of 12 jurors, emotions are high, and tensions can rise- the pressure is palpable and can move one to decide on a verdict based on the personalities around them. However, to the credit of the jury, as soon as they established the positions of those in the room, everyone agreed to adjudicate on the facts as proposed by Juror 4. While this seems like an objective standard, facts are highly open to interpretation, and interpretations are highly subjective (Scheppele, 1990). For example, a highly contentious subject was that of the direction of the knife's thrust into the victim's chest. While it was practical to some, even after reenactment, those who had handled a switch knife before thought it was impractical. While such subjectivity leaves loose ends, another imposed objective criterion is noteworthy: that is the notion of reasonable doubt. Juries are tasked to pass a "guilty" verdict only when it is beyond reasonable doubt, placing the burden of proof on the prosecution, and hence protecting the defendant (Sheppard, 2003). By invoking such an objective standard that they had implicitly agreed upon due to its constitutionality, though Juror 8 does not propose answers as to who commits the crime or how the victim died, he manages to sway the jury into a "not guilty" vote by casting reasonable doubt over the defendant's guilt.
The last issue pertaining to negotiation worth highlighting are the dirty tricks employed by Juror 8. Although Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) suggest that dirty tricks are unethical, the charismatic Juror 8 uses them with much elegance, and though he compromises principles at times, I argue that his poetic maneuvers played a psychological role in winning others to his side. According to Elster (1996), emotions influence decision-making more than rationality due to its direct influence on human satisfaction. Thus, I make the case that Juror 8's poetry buttressed his principled negotiation. Juror 8 employs lock-in tactics when he asks for the second vote to be made, saying that if the 11 other jurors voted "guilty", he would not stand in their way. On principle, Juror 8 had left the defendant's fate up to a gamble, yet poetically, by applying positional pressure, this raised the bar for the other jurors, having them make sure they were absolutely certain before voting "guilty". Also, in one of the most memorable scenes in "12 Angry Men", Juror 8 deals a coup de grâce to Juror 3 by turning Juror 3's impulsive death threat against him, as the latter had earlier on incriminated the defendant based on a similar statement. This is contrary to Fisher, Ury and Patton's (2011) claim that drawing on the past might be counterproductive. However, Juror 8 silences the opposition with this move and cements a personal victory. Thus, Juror 8 demonstrates that dirty tricks are not adversary to principled negotiations but can complement them instead.
In conclusion, Jury Room 208A portrays a microcosm of the negotiations "Getting to Yes" illustrates, while Juror 8 largely embodies the principles put forth by Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011). Juror 8 invokes several ideas posited in "Getting to Yes" in his crusade toward a unanimous "not guilty" vote by the jury, displaying level-headed rationality and creativity in his negotiation. However, although he is principled to a large extent, the theatrics of Juror 8 were integral to swaying the jury. All in all, "12 Angry Men" shows us that negotiation can be poetic as much as it is technical, engaging both the heart and the head.
The first issue worth highlighting was the task of separating people from the problem. This suggestion in "Getting to Yes" predicates on the idea that every negotiator holds dual interests: in the substance and in the relationship. As much as Fisher, Ury & Patton (2011) stress the importance of establishing a working relationship, such a notion seems impractical in Jury Room 208A where 12 complete strangers embark on a onetime task to reach a consensus on a verdict. Without the sentiment of previous acquaintance or the incentive of future relations, it made sense for the jurors to enmesh people with the problem by tackling them both at once. Fisher, Ury & Patton (2011) posit that such a conflation could lead to the perception of objective statements as personal attacks. In light of Juror 8's comment on his unease to vote 'guilty' so hastily, Juror 7 reacts defensively, asking "who says it's easy for me?". Clearly, Juror 7 had cast Juror 8's comment in a self-righteous light, hence perceiving his comments as a personal attack on his questionable conscience. Juror 7, as a result, was polarized from the "not guilty" position for an extended period of time due to the entrenchment of his emotions with their position. Hence, due to the lack of motivation to establish a working relationship in the given context, separating people from the problem became a challenge, and wounded feelings even from the beginning due to the misinterpretation of intentions, stifling the negotiations.
However, despite the improbability of separating people from the problem in such a context, Juror 8 deals directly with the people problem adeptly. Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) claim that if parties are disengaged with the process, they are less inclined to support the outcome. In light of that, Juror 8 conscientiously involves the other jurors in reenactments, inviting their opinions on issues raised during the adjudication process. This gradually wins the other jurors over, especially those who had no strong reason to vote "guilty", converting their position to "not guilty" and conferring them a reason to consolidate their position. Hence, Juror 8 masterfully tackles the people problem before the substance of the problem by aligning their perceptions with his.
The next issue worth highlighting was the task of focusing on interests, not positions. "12 Angry Men", filmed in monochrome, seemingly parallels the black-and- white dynamics of the decision the jury has to make: guilty or not guilty-there is no privilege of compromise. However, Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) suggest that interests are what motivate people to form positions. Beneath the façade of this steely dichotomy lies a multitude of interests held by the 12 jurors, be it the interests of time, justice, peer pressure or for Juror 3, a vendetta.
In an earlier scene in the movie, Juror 3 reveals that he has an estranged son as a result of the former's harsh treatment. He struggles to come to terms with his failure as a parent and owing to the estranged nature of the relationship, closure seems to be out of his control. In the ending of the 1957 film version of "12 Angry Men", Juror 3 collapses in tears, ripping a photograph of his son apart after he fails to convict the defendant. This suggests that Juror 3 sought to attain closure by punishing the defendant as an atoning sacrifice, since he matched the profile of his son. This attempt to take control of his life is claimed by Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) to be one of the basic human needs, hence forming powerful interests. However, the jury had failed to look beyond his positions and take into account his interests, dismissing Juror 3's brief soliloquy, saying "we're missing the point here", and choosing to focus on positions instead as they were in the midst of stating their "guilty/not guilty" votes. Should Juror 3's interests have been addressed much earlier, it could have led to a better understanding of his obstinance and could have fostered a stronger mutual understanding, in turn reduced the observed polarization. Thus, even though Juror 3 held the strongest position, it was undergirded by equally powerful interests that if addressed, would have expedited the negotiation.
Another issue pertaining to negotiation was inventing possibilities. Jury Room 208A is locked as the jury weighs in on the case, seemingly suffocating, and further stifling creative energy. However, Juror 8 notably zones out while looking out the window before he is beckoned to sit at the table when the discussion begins, foreshadowing his ability to think outside the box. Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) note the importance of inventing options due to the propensity for deadlocks to occur when two opposing positions square off. There are theoretically no options other than "guilty" or "not guilty" but Juror 8 transcends the assumptions of a fixed by inventing options in the understanding of how the alleged murder had unfolded. Jury Room 208A is symbolically unlocked only twice during the discussion, both times when evidence is brought in to be reviewed. Both times, in the case of the switch knife and the elderly witness' statement, Juror 8 managed to widen the considerations of the jury by inventing possibilities, such as the duplicity of the knife and the speed of the elderly man. Juror 8 did not necessarily change their mind, but invented possibilities for them to move toward reasonable doubt. As a result, Juror 8 was able to ease the rest of the jury into casting reasonable doubt over their "guilty" verdict, and eventually swayed the jury due to his invention of possibilities.
Insisting on an objective standard is also a central issue regarding negotiation. Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) argue that insisting on objective criterion allow negotiators to make decisions based on principle, rather than pressure. In an enclosed room of 12 jurors, emotions are high, and tensions can rise- the pressure is palpable and can move one to decide on a verdict based on the personalities around them. However, to the credit of the jury, as soon as they established the positions of those in the room, everyone agreed to adjudicate on the facts as proposed by Juror 4. While this seems like an objective standard, facts are highly open to interpretation, and interpretations are highly subjective (Scheppele, 1990). For example, a highly contentious subject was that of the direction of the knife's thrust into the victim's chest. While it was practical to some, even after reenactment, those who had handled a switch knife before thought it was impractical. While such subjectivity leaves loose ends, another imposed objective criterion is noteworthy: that is the notion of reasonable doubt. Juries are tasked to pass a "guilty" verdict only when it is beyond reasonable doubt, placing the burden of proof on the prosecution, and hence protecting the defendant (Sheppard, 2003). By invoking such an objective standard that they had implicitly agreed upon due to its constitutionality, though Juror 8 does not propose answers as to who commits the crime or how the victim died, he manages to sway the jury into a "not guilty" vote by casting reasonable doubt over the defendant's guilt.
The last issue pertaining to negotiation worth highlighting are the dirty tricks employed by Juror 8. Although Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011) suggest that dirty tricks are unethical, the charismatic Juror 8 uses them with much elegance, and though he compromises principles at times, I argue that his poetic maneuvers played a psychological role in winning others to his side. According to Elster (1996), emotions influence decision-making more than rationality due to its direct influence on human satisfaction. Thus, I make the case that Juror 8's poetry buttressed his principled negotiation. Juror 8 employs lock-in tactics when he asks for the second vote to be made, saying that if the 11 other jurors voted "guilty", he would not stand in their way. On principle, Juror 8 had left the defendant's fate up to a gamble, yet poetically, by applying positional pressure, this raised the bar for the other jurors, having them make sure they were absolutely certain before voting "guilty". Also, in one of the most memorable scenes in "12 Angry Men", Juror 8 deals a coup de grâce to Juror 3 by turning Juror 3's impulsive death threat against him, as the latter had earlier on incriminated the defendant based on a similar statement. This is contrary to Fisher, Ury and Patton's (2011) claim that drawing on the past might be counterproductive. However, Juror 8 silences the opposition with this move and cements a personal victory. Thus, Juror 8 demonstrates that dirty tricks are not adversary to principled negotiations but can complement them instead.
In conclusion, Jury Room 208A portrays a microcosm of the negotiations "Getting to Yes" illustrates, while Juror 8 largely embodies the principles put forth by Fisher, Ury and Patton (2011). Juror 8 invokes several ideas posited in "Getting to Yes" in his crusade toward a unanimous "not guilty" vote by the jury, displaying level-headed rationality and creativity in his negotiation. However, although he is principled to a large extent, the theatrics of Juror 8 were integral to swaying the jury. All in all, "12 Angry Men" shows us that negotiation can be poetic as much as it is technical, engaging both the heart and the head.