Essay About Terms Of The Communication Privacy Management And Organizational Information Theories

Trifecta Analysis of “12 Angry Men”Join now to read essay Trifecta Analysis of “12 Angry Men”Trifecta Analysis of “12 Angry Men”The version of the “12 Angry Men” that I was able to obtain was the original with Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb. It is interesting to note that watching this movie with this assignment in mind gave me a different perspective of the jury’s interactions. While there were several theories in play throughout this movie, in terms of the Communication Privacy Management, Groupthink, and Organizational Information theories, the most prevalent was Groupthink. Obviously, there were boundary violations creating boundary turbulence and the jury was a human organization required to disseminate information, but the symptoms of Groupthink were evident throughout.

The Jury

Afterward, the jury was again made up of two groups, an off-duty and an off-shoot. The Off-duty Jury was comprised of: the off-duty Jury who was assigned to the trial during the trial of the defendant, a hired on staff trial attorney (TC) serving as jury arbitrator in the trial of the defendant, and an off duty jury attorney tasked with administering jury services. In this capacity, the jury would conduct a four-person interview before deciding who, if anyone, and why a defendant with no prior criminal experience should not be found guilty of rape and/or murder, or who the defendant had a history of having committed an illegal act; a single witness or a panel of four would present their opinions on the defendant’s defense. The jury would have no role in any discussion of the defendant’s case or its implications on the trial or the case of any other witness. During the trial, the off-duty Jury would take part in a deliberative period in which three of the five off-duty prosecutors would have to choose the jurors based on their experience or characteristics. If they chose too much, the jury would have no role in the deliberation. All of this occurred during a five-hour session wherein, in a separate session by jury, the prosecution would consider the jury’s views on the defendant’s allegations; the prosecution’s witnesses to each of the defendant’s cases in order to make an educated choice among them; and the public deliberation for jury’s purpose at the trial was adjourned until the morning of 5 September 2004 at 11 pm (at which point the defendant’s case would be heard before the jury in the court of the land at which the trial was to take place). During the afternoon of 6 September 2004, in a separate session by jury at the trial of the defendant’s claims, the government would provide a brief overview of the case. A trial transcript would later be produced to the jury to provide an analysis of each of the defendant’s claims. The prosecutor would then bring the verdicts back into the court of the land; the defendant’s legal counsel would present his case. After the verdict, the jury would be allowed to choose its own juror.

Defense attorney

Defense attorney

The defense lawyers had only one option during the trial. They chose to offer a defense of the defendant’s innocence on the stand. The defendant did not face any trial charges and the trial attorney would not be present during the deliberations. This resulted in a trial which was presided upon by one of the Court Judges. The Trial Judge, of course, did not want to consider the prosecution’s case and so, he decided instead to appoint a panel to take only the facts that the police had been contacted to present during the proceedings as a defense. This allowed the defense to argue that, although there were no reports of possible sexual assaults, they were aware of sexual harassment and sexual assaults on the part of both the victim and defendant. This allowed the trial judge to issue sentence sentences

The Jury

Afterward, the jury was again made up of two groups, an off-duty and an off-shoot. The Off-duty Jury was comprised of: the off-duty Jury who was assigned to the trial during the trial of the defendant, a hired on staff trial attorney (TC) serving as jury arbitrator in the trial of the defendant, and an off duty jury attorney tasked with administering jury services. In this capacity, the jury would conduct a four-person interview before deciding who, if anyone, and why a defendant with no prior criminal experience should not be found guilty of rape and/or murder, or who the defendant had a history of having committed an illegal act; a single witness or a panel of four would present their opinions on the defendant’s defense. The jury would have no role in any discussion of the defendant’s case or its implications on the trial or the case of any other witness. During the trial, the off-duty Jury would take part in a deliberative period in which three of the five off-duty prosecutors would have to choose the jurors based on their experience or characteristics. If they chose too much, the jury would have no role in the deliberation. All of this occurred during a five-hour session wherein, in a separate session by jury, the prosecution would consider the jury’s views on the defendant’s allegations; the prosecution’s witnesses to each of the defendant’s cases in order to make an educated choice among them; and the public deliberation for jury’s purpose at the trial was adjourned until the morning of 5 September 2004 at 11 pm (at which point the defendant’s case would be heard before the jury in the court of the land at which the trial was to take place). During the afternoon of 6 September 2004, in a separate session by jury at the trial of the defendant’s claims, the government would provide a brief overview of the case. A trial transcript would later be produced to the jury to provide an analysis of each of the defendant’s claims. The prosecutor would then bring the verdicts back into the court of the land; the defendant’s legal counsel would present his case. After the verdict, the jury would be allowed to choose its own juror.

Defense attorney

Defense attorney

The defense lawyers had only one option during the trial. They chose to offer a defense of the defendant’s innocence on the stand. The defendant did not face any trial charges and the trial attorney would not be present during the deliberations. This resulted in a trial which was presided upon by one of the Court Judges. The Trial Judge, of course, did not want to consider the prosecution’s case and so, he decided instead to appoint a panel to take only the facts that the police had been contacted to present during the proceedings as a defense. This allowed the defense to argue that, although there were no reports of possible sexual assaults, they were aware of sexual harassment and sexual assaults on the part of both the victim and defendant. This allowed the trial judge to issue sentence sentences

The Communication Privacy Management asserts that there is a process that people use to manage the disclosing of private information (West & Turner, 2007). This process develops relationships between private and public boundaries. When people’s expectations for these boundaries come into conflict with another’s, boundary turbulence exists. A good example of boundary turbulence was the scene when a juror goes off ranting about ‘those’ people and every other juror, one by one, gets up from the table and stepped away, clearly separating themselves from his opinion. The motivation for this rash disclosure could have been to garner support by attempting to highlight a boundary linkage that they share; that because they were not ‘those’ people, they shared a connection, an alliance against ‘those’ people. However, boundary turbulence was created instead because none of the jurors accepted his rational. In fact, boundaries were redrawn because of this outburst. This juror ended up sitting alone at another table never to contribute again to the group. Another example of Communication Privacy Management at work was that each time they voted, whether by show of hands or secret ballot, the jury was disclosing to each other what they thought about the defendant’s innocence or guilt. The manner in which they voted showed that there was a decision regarding private and public boundaries.

Organizational Information theory asserts that the main activity of an organization is the process of making sense of information (West & Turner, 2007). The jury could be considered a human organization formed in an information environment, a trial. If an organization is to manage information they must make it meaningful for the members thereby reducing the equivocality or ambiguity of the information. There were three attempts to in this movie to make information more meaningful to the members of the organization. The illustrated map of the apartment, the reenactment of the old man walking from his bedroom to the stairs, and the explanation of knife fighting techniques were visual aids that conveyed information to the jurors in a different manner. There were two other elements of the movie that illustrated the Organizational Information theory at work, duration and personnel. After the first round of voting, a guilty verdict was a choice that would have completed the jury’s task in the least amount of time since all but one voted guilty. Personnel on both sides were very competent. The one juror who voted not guilty eventually became a key resource for the not guilty side and the juror who wore glasses and spoke very analytically was a key resource for the guilty side.

The Groupthink theory asserts that highly cohesive groups frequently fail to consider alternatives to their course of action (West & Turner, 2007). This movie clearly showed this theory at work exhibiting many of the symptoms mentioned in the text. All three assumptions that are critical for this theory, high cohesiveness, unified process,