R C
From the movie, I gained an insight of how objectivity leads to better decision-making. Judgment based on facts allow for fairness and personal matters should not affect one's decision-making, which is evident when juror 7 berated juror 4 for being judgmental. Juror 4 then taunted juror 7 for living in a poor neighbourhood and accused juror 7 for being biased just because they are in the same social class. However, juror 7 did not retaliate, and she calmly allowed juror 1 to continue his analysis of the case. Juror 7 did not want juror 4's comments to deviate her analysis of the case and affect her judgement. Had she reacted from juror's 4 comments, there would be personal arguments, which will cloud her judgement of the case as she will get emotional instead of being objective. This may result in a biased verdict, which is not ideal. Hence, in order to be more objective and have a clear mind to think critically, juror 7 remained calm and composed, leading to a fairer verdict given.
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
11/16/23
Full Review
Li Xuan H
*Spoiler Alert*
I thoroughly enjoyed watching the movie Juror 8. It showed me how powerful a jury made up of common citizens can be despite their lack of expertise in the area of law. The success of reaching the final verdict that is justifiable for Kang Doo Sik (the defendant) is due to the commendable practice of principled negotiations that took place between the jurors. With clear depictions of the 4 steps of principled negotiations in the movie, I better understood how to conduct principled negotiations as learnt from "Getting to Yes" by Roger Fisher. I will be sharing about the main instances in the movie which showed positive and negative examples of separating the people from the problem, focusing on interests not positions, and inventing options for mutual gain.
During the trial, Juror 6 spoke up and said that the wound on Doo Sik's mother was not caused by a hammer due to its shape. Juror 6 was an embalmer for 30 years but people did not take his view into consideration as he is not a licensed expert. Despite his many years of experience with dead bodies, they all believed the forensic doctor instead. In the end, Juror 6 was right but was kicked out of the Jury because everyone on court chose to trust the forensic doctor who was labelled as an "expert" due to the title of his job.
Juror 4 did not separate the people from the problem, she judged the appearance of Doo Sik's daughter, So Ra, who is from a poor neighbourhood saying that she cannot be trusted. She also attacked Juror 7 by saying that she came from the same poor community so Juror 7 must be trying to defend the defendant. Juror 7 did not get angry at Juror 4 or take any offence, she stayed calm and separated Juror 4 from the problem as she knew that the importance is in coming up with a fair verdict for the defendant, not in going home earlier. Juror 7 also took into consideration the interests of Juror 4 which is to end the case quickly. If Juror 7 felt attacked, it could cause tension in the group which would make solving the case more difficult and they might go home later. Juror 7 chose to attack the problem instead of the people (Fisher et al., 1991, p. 37), making the negotiation more efficient while also maintaining a positive relationship with the jurors.
Juror 8 put himself in the shoes (Fisher et al., 1991, p. 23) of Doo Sik who did not know if he actually killed his mother. He explained to the others that if people started pointing fingers at him even though they are not certain that he killed his mother, he would feel afraid too. Juror 8 also allowed the others to understand that Doo Sik's fear and frustration might actually cause his aggression to swing the hammer during the test. This helped the other Jurors take into account the emotions of Doo-sik and gain a new perspective that he did not have the ill intention to harm the head judge.
During the negotiation on whether or not Doo Sik was guilty, Juror 5 let off his anger and impatience to the other Jurors as he did not understand why they can't make an "easy" decision quickly. He did not think of the interests of Doo Sik and the others but only focused on his own interests. The others allowed him to let off steam and did not challenge him, this made it easier for them to discuss reasonably (Fisher et al., 1991, p. 31). Eventually, it gave him space to think more about the severity of the problem and how his decision can affect Doo Sik's life.
Focus on interests, not positions
A negative example would be Juror 5 as he stuck to his position and tried to convince everyone to agree with him based on the evidences given in court. However, his hidden interest was to go home as soon as possible. When the Jurors created the possibility that there could be another culprit (Doo Sik's uncle who drank with his sister on the night of her death), Juror 5 was very persistent with sticking to the judgement of the judges, prosecutors and the lawyers because they were experts and even discounted his own judgement because he saw himself as a commoner with less say in the final decision. Juror 7 had to remind him that he has the responsibility to make his own decision by asking him what his stand was.
It is important to talk about each individual's interests and make it come alive (Fisher et al., 1991, p. 50). This is to allow the other side to understand exactly how important and legitimate your interests are. Juror 8 was committed to his interest in making sure that the verdict was fair for the defendant. He was "hard on the problem and soft on the people" (Fisher et al., 1991, p. 54). Fisher states that the wisest solutions, those that give the most gains for you with the least cost to the other side, are produced only by strongly advocating your interests. Juror 8 is a positive example as he let the others know that he did not want to vote "guilty" because it didn't seem right to make the decision when they were still uncertain that Doo Sik was guilty. He made his interests specific by explaining that it may cost a life. Vocalising this made the rest of the jurors realise that their decision has a drastic impact on Doo Sik's life hence motivating them to investigate further for a clearer picture. Another good example was after Juror 7 clearly called out the interests of the other Jurors saying that they want to withdraw Juror 8's vote so that things can end quickly and they can all go home. Her statement acknowledged their previously unspoken interests as part of the problem and brought it to light such that everyone had a mutual understanding of their interests.
At first, Juror 8 was the only one who did not settle for the obvious and easy answer as the evidences were not entirely clear. He expressed his interests of wanting a fair judgement for Doo Sik and managed to convince the rest that there could be more than what meets the eye. He brought everyone to a shared interest and goal to make a fair verdict for Doo Sik (Fisher et al., 1991, p. 73). This was their motivation to keep investigating and thinking of multiple options.
The Jurors brainstormed together which allowed them to have the freedom of thinking creatively (Fisher et al., 1991, p. 62). They separated the act of deciding a final verdict on the defendant from the act of creating multiple possibilities which allowed them to make a clearer and better decision. It is essential to make a wider selection of options rather than to look for one single answer, when there are more possible answers, you have more options to choose the single best answer (Fisher et al., 1991, p. 60). During the brainstorm, the Jurors thought of multiple possibilities by ideating together before coming up with one answer and sticking to it. Juror 8 thought of the idea that people shout for help when they are in danger but Doo Sik's mother did not scream, hence it could be a suicide. An idea also came up that Doo Sik's uncle could be the one that killed her and the security guard might have seen the wrong culprit. Juror 1 reminded everyone to think of the possibility of innocence as what he had learnt from law school and the possibility that Doo Sik did it accidentally. The good thing is that they did not rush to conclusion without thinking of all options possible.
The Jurors developed their ideas further by building it up with questions; From the 6th floor of another block, can you see the face of Doo Sik clearly as he held his mother? The security guard could have witnessed the scene when the lightning struck? The guard wore spectacles so he has bad eyesight? To test if there could be another culprit and the guard might not have seen things clearly, they conducted a crime scene inspection where they re-enacted the whole scene.
They also dug further into the evidence such as the hammer being handed in one day after the incident or the that the handwriting is different from Doo Sik's on the form for family disownment. Later on, Juror 8 figured out the it was Doo Sik's mother's handwriting which showed her love for her son, pointing the best answer to his mother committing suicide.
The movie evidently showed principled negotiation put into practice and how it can lead to a successful outcome with a fair verdict for Doo Sik. The jurors being common citizens shows us that we do not need to be experts to practice principled negotiations. The jurors came from all walks of life, with little to no experience in law but still managed to bring justice to the defendant. Just like them, anyone can practice principled negotiations to maintain good relations while finding the best solution.
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
11/19/22
Full Review
Zi Yi C
The movie was paced very well and the plot was very well thought out. The story revolves around a court case in Korea where it was the first time the public jury was introduced into the process. Through this movie, it exposed me to the art of negotiation. There were many different parties who had different views on the criminal case and it was very interesting to see how they manage to influence each other in their views to reach a conclusion for the court case. Highly recommend this movie to all!
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
10/27/22
Full Review
Read all reviews
>
