Psychology-decision making - Essay Example

Analysis on Decision Making for 12 Angry Men “12 Angry Men” is a story on a jury’s consensus in reaching a verdict. It showed that what is presented should not be the only basis to make a decision. Evidences should be carefully studied. Characteristics and credibility of the witnesses should also be considered if the statement that they have given is truthful. It was on a summer afternoon at the Manhattans Court of General Sessions, the judge was talking to the jury on how they should decide on the case that they were faced.

It was a murder case on the first degree as an 18-year old son was being accused of killing his father at their apartment. The 12-man jury was dismissed by the judge who seems to be bored of the case for them to deliberate on the verdict for the suspect. The jury would need to reach a consensus vote of 12-0 or 0-12 either way to convict the suspect without reasonable doubt. What is a reasonable doubt? A ‘reasonable doubt’ is a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. (Floyd and Sinclair, 2011) Juror #8, who at the end of the movie was named Davis, said that the defense lawyer poorly argued the prosecution’s evidences and witnesses. During the deliberation of the jurors, they themselves examined one by one the evidences and the statement of the witnesses that were presented to be the basis of the conviction.

Initially, the count was 11-1 favoring the guilty verdict. As Juror #8 started to voice out his arguments, though it started a heated verbal exchange, one by one the other jurors started to gain a reason why the verdict should be not guilty. As the jurors deliberate on the evidences and statements one by one, each of them started to have doubts on the credibility of what was presented. It was said that the process of jury deliberation would lead to relatively less weight being placed on extralegal, biasing information and relatively more weight on the appropriate information on the trial evidence itself.

(Kaplan, et al, 1999) Not all the evidences that are presented are credible. It should be carefully studied for a jury to reach a conclusion if it is sufficient to reach a verdict beyond reasonable doubt. It should also be taken in consideration that cognitive processes and social cognition are not enough to convict a suspect. There are elements that will affect one’s memory especially when faced with a traumatic experience. As the movie goes, it was said that suspect’s alibi was that he went to see a movie during the time the crime was committed.

However, the suspect cannot remember the name of the film that he saw or even the actors who were in it. It was also pointed out that the suspect was questioned by 2 detectives at the apartment where his dead father lies. Juror #8 practiced the attribution theory which is trying to understand other people’s behavior by piecing together information until they arrived at a reasonable explanation or cause. (Heider, 1958) He used the presented evidences against the suspect to reach a consensus for a verdict.

Eyewitness testimony was also questioned twice. The first one was the old man who said that he saw the panicked boy run down the stairs from the apartment at 12:10 am, fifteen seconds after the killing. As juror #8 summarized the findings, the vote became 6-6. Another eyewitness whose credibility was questioned was of the old lady who said she saw the killing first hand. It was at a point when the vote was 2-10 in favor of the not guilty verdict. Juror #9 noticed the marks that Juror #4 had on his nose where the juror’s eyeglasses rest.

It was pointed out that the old woman witness also had the same indentions on her nose. Arguments then even heated up on whether the old woman really saw the suspect clearly even without her glasses during the night. As that fact was pointed out, juror #4 changed his vote and made the count 1-11. It was an emotional moment when juror #3 changed his vote from guilty to not guilty as he was able to connect on the father and son aspect of the case.A consensus was reached in favor of a “not guilty” verdict.

A case that started up to be a trial for conviction ended up to be a trial to free the innocent. It is an example that even when the evidences are pointing to the suspect, it doesn’t mean that the suspect is already guilty beyond reasonable doubt without further examining the evidences and statements. Making a decision, especially when it involves human lives, should always study the fact and statements that are present. One should not just decide based on hearsays or information that are not yet proven to be true.

It should not be just making a vote to reach a consensus, but making a vote not just by believing on the facts but also proving that is presented is true and credible.References:Floyd, J. and Sinclair, B. (2011, January 30) What is Reasonable Doubt? Retrieved October 19, 2011 from Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.Kaplan, M. F., Kerr, N. L., and Niedermeier, K. E., (1999, October) Bias in Jurors vs Bias in Juries:New Evidence from the SDS Perspective.

< http://www.idealibrary.com> Wise, R. A., Safer, M. A., (1993) A Survey of Judges’ Knowledge and Beliefs About Eyewitness Testimony.