Twelve Angry Men Essay Example for Free

Twelve Angry Men Essay Twelve Angry Men depicts different types of leadership, communication, and group dynamics. The film revolves around the jurisdiction of a homicide trial with a jury that almost unanimously votes the defendant guilty, with only one opposing voter. This man, Juror #8, presents his decision through ideas of reasonable doubt that spiral into a majority vote of not-guilty. So, how does a group of twelve men completely shift their point of view from guilty to not-guilty? The power of effective leadership and communication. Juror #8 was able to effectively communicate with the men to think of other scenarios that prove the defendant not-guilty through democratic styled leadership. He did not necessarily think the defendant was not guilty. However, he was not positive the boy was guilty and did not want to make a decision without 100% confidence. Therefore, he communicated his view by encouraging the jury to examine the facts in a new light and opening a discussion amongst the jurors. The re-analyzation of the facts arose new questions about the verity of the facts, allowing some, and eventually all, of the jurors to question their original declaration of guilty. Lack of leadership and communication from the majority are also factors in the change of decision. The group of 11 men did not have a solid leader to hold together their original verdict. In the beginning, juror #1 was the apparent leader of the group. He stated the jury procedures and inquired each man’s vote. When opposition from juror #8 arose, he attempted to get the group to dismiss the idea. Eventually, he loses interest in caring and steps back as the leader. A disinterest by other jurors was also seen when some were playing games. It was also evident that some jurors only went with the majority based on hidden agendas such as wanting the trial to be over or personal opinions of people such as prejudices. In addition, Juror #3 is the prime opposer to the questions presented by juror #8. He is vocal about his confidence in his decision towards the defendant. However, his leadership style was of an autocratic nature, which worked to his disadvantage. People are more likely to follow a kind leader than someone who belittles and frightens. Therefore, Juror #8 had effective communication to win over the quiet jurors who were first too intimidated to question the majority. He dominated the discussion and lead with powerful points that left the jurors thinking. He created an open discussion. This lead to jurors asking valid questions on the verity of the facts presented. Turning points came when a witness’ testimony was questioned due to their poor vision proved through glasses marks on her nose, the angel of the man’s wound from the stab, presenting a knife that was claimed to be one of a kind, and the actual time it wold take for the witness to see what happened after they heard the scream. The film also shows how leadership thrives with the addition of followers. Without followers one cannot be declared a leader. If juror #8 stated and expressed reasons for his view and no others followed, the decision would have been in the majority’s favor and juror #8 would have just been a man with an opinion. Instead, he was able to first convince juror #9, which immediately gave his opinion credibility. Once juror #9 switched sides, it was evident that everyone else re-examined their opinion and started to formulate valid questions. Juror #9 was able to break the hold of group think, allowing others to actually voice their thoughts. This especially pertains to the quiet jurors who were originally too intimidated to question the majority. These jurors were now actually able to think for themselves and were open to communicate juror #8’s points of reasonable doubt. Twelve Angry Men is also an interesting depiction of group dynamics. In a group, decision-making can be hindered due to majority process. When a majority is present, it is easy for others to join in. This was displayed in the beginning of the film. There were a couple to quickly charge the defendant as guilty and others followed, although some appeared hesitant. They only made a decision once they saw the other opinions. This is a common problem in a group setting. It is too much effort to be the odd man out. Therefore, the quieter and more timid people conform to the majority for an easy solution. Juror #8 intelligently realized this group dynamic and intelligently focused his attention to the quiet members. He asked that another vote be taken by secret ballots. This is an effective way of voting that allowed for better communication, allowing the quieter jurors to submit their vote in private. This proved effective when the vote switched from 11-1 to 10-2. This lead to an open discussion amongst many in the group, drawing valuable ideas and opinions that they might not have offered otherwise. Juror #8 created a setting for group discussion where everyone started to work together as a team to determine the verdict of the case. As a team, the jury unanimously shifted their vote to not-guilty; an excellent demonstration on the power of effective communication and leadership.

John Bates Clark :: essays research papers

John Bates Clark John Bates Clark was an American economist who lived from 1847-1938. He played an important role in the development of marginal productivity, and had a great influence on the development of economic thought in the United States. Clark was educated at Amherst College and at the University of Heidelberg in Germany. He taught at Carlton College in Northfield, Minnesota from 1875 to 1881. He then moved on to teach at Smith College, Amherst, Johns Hopkins and Columbia from which he retired in 1923. In formulating the Neoclassical theory of the firm, John Bates Clark took over the classical categories of land, labor, and capital and simplified them in two ways, this simplification was the theory of marginal productivity. First, he assumed that all labor is homogenous, which meant that one labor hour is a perfect substitute for any other labor hour, but when marginal productivity was decreasing, the industry found it more profitable to replace labor with machinery. Clark believed that to make a sound economy wages had to be equal to the marginal productivity of labor. This was also beneficial to both the industry and the labor. Secondly, Clark ignored the distinction between land and capital, grouping together both kinds of non-human inputs under the general term "capital," which he then assumed that the broadened "capital" is homogenous. John took this Neoclassical approach one step further than others in applying it to the business firm and the maximization of profits. One of the results was a theory of the distribution which demonstrated that market outcomes were just. Clark also believed that technological change would lead to an increase in the standard of living which he felt was one of the chief goals of any economic system. He felt that with this technological change, labor would be more productive and lead to higher profits for industry. When the labor would see that industry was making higher profits, they would demand its share of the profits for their hard work. The labor's higher wages and the industries' higher profits would increase incomes and better the social living for everyone. Among Clark's works are The Philosophy of Wealth (1886), The Distribution of Wealth (1899), and Essentials of Economic Theory (1907).

Essay Social Security

Social Security Issue The current Social Security system should be replaced by a mandatory private pension system. The current system entails workers being forced to give a certain percentage of money out of their pay checks to Social Security. This tax money is used to pay benefits to retired people, disabled people, survivors of workers who have died, and dependents of beneficiaries (SSA). To most, this system sounds unfair because workers put in hours of labor for a paycheck that religiously has money taken out for someone else’s retirement, disability, etc. however, people for this system believe this benefits everyone because workers are not in control of their own specific retirement fund so poor decisions cannot be made. In reality, people should be able to control the fate of their own retirement funds because they can decide when the money is necessary, which can be done by making the change to a private pension system. The current Social Security system creates a lot of concern because of the accelerating demographic factors (NCPA). Life expectancy is increasing faster than expected — in 1940, a 65-year-old man could expect to live another 12 years, today it's 15 years; the fertility rate is falling faster than expected — from 3. 6 children for a typical woman of child-bearing age in 1960 to just two today; and the elderly portion of the population is expected to rise from 12 percent today to 20 percent by 2050 — increasing the number of retirees from 34 million to 80 million† (NCPA).The decreasing working population combined with the rising elderly population means the number of elderly people needing benefits will be greater than the number of working people providing the money for those benefits (NCPA). Because of these statistics, the favor for a private pension system is growing so workers can save their taxes for their individual retirements.With a private pension system as opposed to the current, honored system , the working class has more control over their retirement funds because for one, they would be earning the money for themselves, and two, the money would be in a private account for them. With the money accumulating in a private account, it is not exposed to risk. â€Å"These federally regulated personal accounts would allow individuals to invest only in diversified, approved utual funds and not in single stocks or highly volatile stocks† (Procon). In addition to its added personal safety, a private system would help the economy. â€Å"Privatizing Social Security into individual investment accounts would boost economic growth by injecting money back into America's failing financial system† (Procon). With the economic growth this would cause, there could be a possible decrease in unemployment rates, pulling the economy out of the current recession.In conclusion, the switch from the current Social Security system to a mandatory private pension system is ideal not only f or the working class, but also for the environment. Even with the criticism that a private pension system would tempt workers to make poor decisions with their retirement funds, people should have control over the money they make and be able to determine their own fate. Working for a paycheck that loses a percentage of its total to be given to the current retirees, the disabled, etc. s unfair and will discourage the working class. A private pension system that will actually save an individual’s own money will be more motivating to work towards and will better prepare him or her for their elderly years. Works Cited NCPA. â€Å"Social Security Problems Accelerating. † NCPA. org. National Center for Policy Analysis, 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2012. . Procon. â€Å"Privatize Social Security. † Procon. org. Procon, 13 Mar. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2012. . SSA. â€Å"Social Security. † Ssa. gov. Social Security Administration, Mar. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2012. .

Government, Democracy, Or Authoritarianism - 1552 Words

A government’s role in society is to rule over a community. It accomplishes this through setting laws or policies and there are several different types of government. However, the most powerful and prevalent world powers have all had one of the major types of government, democracy, communism or authoritarianism. All are very different in how they try to achieve the same goal of ruling over a group of people. A democracy is â€Å"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections†. (â€Å"Definition of Democracy†). A democracy is a form of government that relies heavily on the input on the people it governs.†¦show more content†¦It was in 1958 when the democratic government that is recognized as modern day France, the 5th Republic, was created. (â€Å"France History†). France has always leaned towards creating a democratic government, and this is evident because the goal of the French Revolution was to install one such government. However, they have been plagued with a structurally weak government, overly powerful rulers, and extreme military conflict. All these reasons prevented France from creating a stable and strong democratic government. Communism is a fairly new idea of government. It was created by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels and they discussed it in their book, The Communist Manifesto published in 1848. The idea of communism was to eliminate social classes and stop the oppression of the working class, proletariats, by the people who owns the means of production, bourgeoisies. All private ownership will be abolished and there would be no more class conflict. (â€Å"Communism and Computer Ethics†). An example of a communist nation was Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution. In the 1900’s, Russia began to industrialize. Because of this, they had a very large working class. The current ruler, Nicholas II, was already an unpopular ruler. After Russia lost to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War, the government split into two political parties, the communist Bolsheviks and the moderate Mensheviks. When World War 1 occurred, Russia was in a crisis. Their economy had collapsed soon after and they