GROUP DECISION MAKING

GROUP DECISION MAKING

            Challenges are at times disruptive to the success of any group. Group problem solving is the process of conveying together participants who through their logical decision making capabilities can impact the outcome of the problem.

Based on the story line of the “12 angry men”, a play acted in New York City court of Law jury in the year 1957; there is a murder case presented of a boy who is accused of killing his father. It is clear that incase the boy is proved guilty; the mandatory sentence is a death penalty. All the jurors in this panel presume the obvious, that the defendant is guilt out of the two witnesses, the Old man and a woman.

Contrally to the presumption, the six steps to group problem solving process played a very crucial role to changing the outcome of the case which otherwise would have been a direct death penalty to the accused boy.

Defining and analyzing the problem

The problem in this scenario is determining the fate of the accused boy, whether the boy accused of killing the father is guilty or not. Although the problem looks obvious as depicted by the presumption of the jurors as they enter the courtroom, it is not the case. Eventually when the twelve settle and a vote undertaken, all the jurors are for the idea that the boy is guilty except the 8^th Juror. Due to the requisite of a unanimous jury, the panel is required to analyze the cases which ultimately lead to jurors changing the stand on the case

Establishing the criteria to come up with the solution

The case scenario uses the criterion of casting the votes in favor or against the boy being associated with the killing of the father. As seen in the first epitome, the presumption held initially that the boy is definitely guilt is overcome after the panel fails to agree in the ballot. The 8^th juror goes against the presumption and this call for a requirement to revisit the case

Identifying possible solutions

After the 8^th juror “not guilty” vote, the rest of jurors violently react and ultimately resolve move around the table, each juror clarifying the reason as to why the defendant is guilty, aiming at convincing the 8^th juror. Through the discussion an old man staying beneath the boy is said to have testified of hearing the boy shout “I’m gonna kill you,” and then saw the boy run down the stairs. Similarly a woman across the street is also said to have affirmed that he saw the boy kill the father via the windows of passing train. A murder knife is also presented in this discussion as a conviction that the boy really killed the father.

Evaluation of solutions

After the panel proposes the reasons behind the idea that the boy was guilty, the 8^th juror reacts to prove the ineffectiveness of the accusations. First of all, he presents a duplicate knife he purchased in a shop next to the boy’s premises to shatter the assertion that the knife was so distinctive and identifiable. He goes ahead and questions the ability of the old man who suffered from stroke to rush and see the boy run down the stairs in fifteen seconds as he had testified.it was concluded that he could not. The claim is as well nullified.

Selecting the best solution

To come up with the best ruling in this case, majority rule was used. After the 8^th juror presents an identical knife purchased near the boy’s premises to nullify the identical knife accusation, he asks the rest of jurors to conduct a vote so as to continue with deliberations. Regarding the accusation made by the old man of hearing the boy say “I’m gonna kill you”, the 9^th juror who has just changed his stand to “not guilty” outlines that this could be taken as just a figure of speech. The 5^th juror shifts his stand to “not guilty”. After another discussion on why would the boy go back home after the murder, another vote is taken and the outcome changes in favor of “not guilty”

Testing the solution selected

Out of the evidence provided by the witnesses, old man living in the same apartment with the boy and the woman each evidence is analyzed deeply in the panel accompanied by a vote in each step made. For instance, the case of identical knife is nullified after the 8^th juror presents a similar knife to that of the boy and purchased around the boy’s premises. Each accusation is tested step by step and lastly all nullified. The effective running that the boy is not guilty is settled and the boy is not sentenced to death penalty.