The book Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose
A keen evaluation of the character of individuals would, in numerous instances, reveal the fact that the decisions made by a person will always have some influence from either the environment they are in or past experience. It is sporadic to have a situation where the pronouncements made by a person coming from an immediate conclusion; they often have a stimulation spring. The book Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a great resource to show how the environment of an individual influences the decisions that they are going to make in a particular situation. Other than the book, I also have had personal experiences that were shaped by my setting. In this essay, I will explore how the Jury setting influenced the decision of 9th Juror and the 3rd Juror and how I also have had similar influenced decisions.
At the beginning of the court deliberations, only the 8th Juror was for the vote that the young boy was not guilty of the crime that he was alleged to have committed, that was of killing his father. The other eleven jurors, after listening to the witnesses, they had gone with the verdict of the boy being guilty. However, because there had to be a unanimous decision, even their being majority did not guarantee the go-ahead of a final verdict. The 8th Juror allowed them to take another vote even on his absentia, and if they came up with a unanimous vote, he would agree with them. That does not happen though; the 9th Juror goes with another position. In this incident, his sympathy for the boy is influenced by another person siding with him, the 8th Juror. Were it not for there being a different ideology by the 8th Juror; there was not turning for the 9th Juror.
By the end of the play, 10 of the judges who had been for the guilt of the boy at the beginning had been influenced into a not guilty position. That was except for the 3rd Juror, who was still standing alone. He was determined for the case to end up being a hung Jury if that was all it took for him to stand with his decision on the boy. However, he was unable to bear with the environment after a final plea by the 8th and 4th Jurors. He only ended up agreeing to the other eleven to the verdict of not guilty. In this, the decision of the 3rd Juror comes from environmental influence; the other Jurors and most specifically that of the fourth and eighth.
I have also had a personal experience that dictates the setting influencing my decisions. That was during a group work activity in my class. We were given assignments to handle in groups of five. In that maiden instance, we were to handle a mathematical problem that would hugely determine the final result of the semester. In the calculations, I remember we at some point disagreed of a formula that was supposed to be used to handle the question; another member and I were for a specific formula at the beginning, and the other three had their say. We discussed, and at the end of it all, the member we sided with was diffused into their idea since they were more than us. And since time was ticking, I also decided to go with them to avoid losing it all. Nevertheless, deep within, I knew we did the wrong thing. When it came to results, we failed, and the correct way was my idea.