Introduction
The
movie “EK RUKA HUA FAISLA” is an Indian Film, year 1986, was directed by Mr.Basu
Chatterjee. The film is a remake of an American movie “12 Angry Men”. The movie
is a closed room drama of a murder trial where one dissenting juror in a murder
trial tries to influence the verdict with his personal prejudices and biases.
Ek Ruka
Hua Faisla starts in a courtroom where a teenage boy from a slum stands trial
for stabbing his father to death. The Judge instructs the Jury to come to a
decision on whether they find the boy guilty of the crime or not. If found
guilty, the boy will be awarded a death sentence. The evidences against the boy
look irrefutable.
The twelve member jury shuts itself in a closed room to
discuss the case. As the jury members get acquainted with each other, it
becomes evident that nearly all of them have already decided that the boy is
guilty and are in a hurry to get over with the formalities quickly and get back
to their routine lives.
the first round of vote, Juror #8 votes ‘not guilty’ as he believes that there
is too much at stake to pronounce the boy guilty without discussing all the
aspects of the crime in detail. There is a heated discussion among the jury
members, they are annoyed because the case which they had decided was open and
shut is being prolonged.
It is clear that most of the jurors are biased which
is influencing their sense of judgement. How a small doubt in the mind of one
person slowly begins to create conflict in the mind of the 11 other jurors can
be seen with every round of voting.
Slowly
emotions of the jurors become intense when they begin to relate the case with
some aspects of their personal lives. Their anger increases leading them to
shout at each other and even get violent as shown by Juror #3 who lunges at
Juror #8 yelling, “I will kill you”. Juror #10 exhibits the contempt he in
general has for the slum dwellers and clearly showing in his rage how this bias
is clouding his judgement. It then comes out that Juror #3’s contempt for the
boy has arisen from the poor treatment he has received from his own son. He
finally breaks down and changes his vote to ‘not guilty’.
The
characters in the movie are many layered. Their appearances hide inner
turmoil. Slowly the characters’
strengths, weaknesses, fear, beliefs, prejudices and grudges are revealed. Each
aspect of the case is meticulously thought over, the jurors even act out the
scenes of the crime in an attempt to understand the truth of the case.
The
audience witnesses drastic change in the Characters, the seemingly weak showing
strength of character, while those who appeared to be tough and immovable at
the beginning of the movie crack up, expose their vulnerability. This film is a
very good analysis of human psychology, the power of influencing and the
complexities of the human mind.
Knowing about Organizational behavior through the movie
In
context of Organizational Behavior, the film is a perfect example that depicts
group shift, group think, cohesiveness and social loafing.
Social
loafing, according to Stephen P. Robbins, Timothy A. Judge and Neharika Vohra in their book " Organizational Behavior 16 e " , is the tendency for individuals
to put less effort when working collectively than working individually.
example: When all jurors were discussing
about the case in depth and detail, there was juror #12 was drawing something
on paper. All the jurors were asked to give their opinions one by one and when
his turn came, he did not know what was going on and whenever voting took place
to determine who is in the favor of accused person being guilty or not, since
he did not pay any attention and did not put in any effort, he changed his vote
according to the majority.
second instance of social loafing which we can see is that when juror #7 was
keen on watching movie and he made many attempts to finish the discussion as
soon as possible. Even he changed his vote according to majority.
The third
instance of social loafing that we can see is when the discussion continued between
juror #3 and juror #7 and another juror
were playing tic tac toe.
According to Stephen P. Robbins, Timothy A. Judge and Neharika Vohra in their book " Organizational Behavior 16 e " , Groupthink is a process in which the norm for consensus
overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.
For
example: From the very beginning of the movie except juror #8 all other jurors
had already made up their minds that the accused is guilty without having any
deliberation. They wanted to get over with the discussion as soon as possible. For
them this was merely a formality. They did not think about the possibilities
that the accused could be innocent.
All of them had a common mindset that the
boy was expert in using knives, there were three witnesses , one old man who
had seen him shouting at his father “I will kill you”, a woman who had seen the
boy stabbing his father to death and his friends who confessed that the knife at
the crime scene was exactly like the knife the boy possessed.
One juror recalled
that when the accused was asked his whereabouts at the time of the murder, the
accused claimed to be watching a movie but was unable to recollect the name to
the movie. All these factors proved that the accused was guilty.
Since
they wanted to end the discussion as soon as possible and all the circumstances
pointed towards the culprit as being the murderer, except juror 8, all had a
consensus which overrode the realistic approach or the alternative approach,
that is there is a possibility that the accused is innocent.
The had already
come to a conclusion based on the facts that were visible to them until juror #8
by carefully discussing each and every aspect and possibility related to the
case became successful in convincing each juror that the accused is innocent
which is lead to “group shift”.
Group
shift means a change between a group’s
decision and an individual decision that a member within the group would make,
the shift can be toward either conservatism or greater risk but it is generally
is toward a more extreme version of the group’s original position.
For
example:
There are
many instances where one can experience group shift during the course of the
movie. When juror #8 was opposed by juror #3 since juror #3 believed that since
the accused had shouted that he would kill his father in itself is proof enough
that he is guilty, juror #8 cleverly provoked juror #3 so much that juror #3
threatened to kill juror #8.
Juror #8 pointed out that the threat was only
words and juror #3 did not actually mean to kill him. Juror #8 pointed out at
the possibility that the since accused was ill treated by his father and was
slapped by him, he would have uttered the words out of anger, but in reality
had no intention of killing his father. This convinced Juror #9 who changed his
vote to ‘not guilty’.
The
second instance which we can site is when juror #8 was trying to convince was
that there is a possibility that the old man did not recognize or hear the so
called voice of the accused properly. According to the old man, he heard the
accused yelling and then as soon as he woke up, he saw the accused running and
all this happened in 15 seconds. Juror #8 tried pointed out that the old man
had an injured leg and was unable to stand in court without help.
Juror #8 had procured a map of the old man’s
house which showed that the distance between the old man’s room and the stairs
was 40 meters. Juror #8 demonstrated that even when the old man would have
walked fast with an injured leg he would have reached the stairs only after 40
seconds.
Therefore, it was quite possible that the old man had heard the
accused and his father fighting some time previously. At the time of the
incident the old man had only heard the victim scream and fall, maybe also the
sounds of the running footsteps and had assumed that it was the accused. With
this juror #5, juror #2, Juror #6 and Juror #11 were convinced and they also changed
their vote to ‘not guilty’.
Supporting
Juror #8, Juror #2 had raised a question, that in the report it was stated the
victim had been stabbed from upward to downward direction. He doubted that the
difference in heights of the victim and accused did not make it feasible for
the accused to do so. Juror #3 was adamant and demonstrated that this was
possible on Juror #8.
5 of the jurors
were convinced. It was juror #5 who informed everyone in the room that the
knife was of a special kind and is used by a special technique that is
downwards to upwards. To prove this he informed that he had been born in this
area and had been stabbed in the similar manner. Seeing his scar, juror #12
voted for not guilty.
The
incident which lead to a complete group shift was when juror #3 demanded a
reason to refute the claim made by the woman witness. The woman had stated that
she had seen the boy stab his father through the windows of the last two
coaches of a local train which passed between her and their window. During the trail the woman had been
continuously rubbing her nose which was attributed to a weak eye sight by Juror
#9 when he saw Juror #4 doing the same
thing.
It was
concluded that the woman’s eyesight was weak and did not wear spectacles out of
vanity. It was without doubt that she would not have seen the boy committing
the crime clearly. Again Juror #4 and
Juror #1 changed their vote to ‘not guilty’. Juror #10 and Juror #7 changed their
vote in conformity to the majority.
Only Juror
#3 was adamant till the end that the boy was guilty of the crime. On being
repeatedly questioned, he broke down and disclosed that his judgement was
colored because he himself faced ill treatment at the hands of his son. The
others reasoned with him that the boy that juror #3 is trying to punish is not
his son and in all likely hood is innocent and therefore has the right to live.
Juror #3 finally agreed to set aside his prejudices and voted ‘not guilty’.
We can see
a classic case of group shift that took place from one person (juror 8) who
voted ‘not guilty’ and the rest voting ‘guilty’ to a shift where all the 12
jurors are convinced that the accused person is not guilty.
Groupthink is a process in which the norm for consensus
overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.
For
example: From the very beginning of the movie except juror #8 all other jurors
had already made up their minds that the accused is guilty without having any
deliberation. They wanted to get over with the discussion as soon as possible. For
them this was merely a formality. They did not think about the possibilities
that the accused could be innocent. All of them had a common mindset that the
boy was expert in using knives, there were three witnesses , one old man who
had seen him shouting at his father “I will kill you”, a woman who had seen the
boy stabbing his father to death and his friends who confessed that the knife at
the crime scene was exactly like the knife the boy possessed. One juror recalled
that when the accused was asked his whereabouts at the time of the murder, the
accused claimed to be watching a movie but was unable to recollect the name to
the movie. All these factors proved that the accused was guilty.
Since
they wanted to end the discussion as soon as possible and all the circumstances
pointed towards the culprit as being the murderer, except juror 8, all had a
consensus which overrode the realistic approach or the alternative approach,
that is there is a possibility that the accused is innocent. The had already
come to a conclusion based on the facts that were visible to them until juror #8
by carefully discussing each and every aspect and possibility related to the
case became successful in convincing each juror that the accused is innocent
which is lead to “group shift”.
Group
shift means a change between a group’s
decision and an individual decision that a member within the group would make,
the shift can be toward either conservatism or greater risk but it is generally
is toward a more extreme version of the group’s original position.
For
example:
There are
many instances where one can experience group shift during the course of the
movie. When juror #8 was opposed by juror #3 since juror #3 believed that since
the accused had shouted that he would kill his father in itself is proof enough
that he is guilty, juror #8 cleverly provoked juror #3 so much that juror #3
threatened to kill juror #8. Juror #8 pointed out that the threat was only
words and juror #3 did not actually mean to kill him. Juror #8 pointed out at
the possibility that the since accused was ill treated by his father and was
slapped by him, he would have uttered the words out of anger, but in reality
had no intention of killing his father. This convinced Juror #9 who changed his
vote to ‘not guilty’.
The
second instance which we can site is when juror #8 was trying to convince was
that there is a possibility that the old man did not recognise or hear the so
called voice of the accused properly. According to the old man, he heard the
accused yelling and then as soon as he woke up, he saw the accused running and
all this happened in 15 seconds. Juror #8 tried pointed out that the old man
had an injured leg and was unable to stand in court without help. Juror #8 had procured a map of the old man’s
house which showed that the distance between the old man’s room and the stairs
was 40 meters. Juror #8 demonstrated that even when the old man would have
walked fast with an injured leg he would have reached the stairs only after 40
seconds. Therefore, it was quite possible that the old man had heard the
accused and his father fighting some time previously. At the time of the
incident the old man had only heard the victim scream and fall, maybe also the
sounds of the running footsteps and had assumed that it was the accused. With
this juror #5, juror #2, Juror #6 and Juror #11 were convinced and they also changed
their vote to ‘not guilty’.
Supporting
Juror #8, Juror #2 had raised a question, that in the report it was stated the
victim had been stabbed from upward to downward direction. He doubted that the
difference in heights of the victim and accused did not make it feasible for
the accused to do so. Juror #3 was adamant and demonstrated that this was
possible on Juror #8. 5 of the jurors
were convinced. It was juror #5 who informed everyone in the room that the
knife was of a special kind and is used by a special technique that is
downwards to upwards. To prove this he informed that he had been born in this
area and had been stabbed in the similar manner. Seeing his scar, juror #12
voted for not guilty.
The
incident which lead to a complete group shift was when juror #3 demanded a
reason to refute the claim made by the woman witness. The woman had stated that
she had seen the boy stab his father through the windows of the last two
coaches of a local train which passed between her and their window. During the trail the woman had been
continuously rubbing her nose which was attributed to a weak eye sight by Juror
#9 when he saw Juror #4 doing the same
thing.
It was
concluded that the woman’s eyesight was weak and did not wear spectacles out of
vanity. It was without doubt that she would not have seen the boy committing
the crime clearly. Again Juror #4 and
Juror #1 changed their vote to ‘not guilty’. Juror #10 and Juror #7 changed their
vote in conformity to the majority.
Only Juror
#3 was adamant till the end that the boy was guilty of the crime. On being
repeatedly questioned, he broke down and disclosed that his judgement was
coloured because he himself faced ill treatment at the hands of his son. The
others reasoned with him that the boy that juror #3 is trying to punish is not
his son and in all likely hood is innocent and therefore has the right to live.
Juror #3 finally agreed to set aside his prejudices and voted ‘not guilty’.
We can see
a classic case of group shift that took place from one person (juror 8) who
voted ‘not guilty’ and the rest voting ‘guilty’ to a shift where all the 12
jurors are convinced that the accused person is not guilty.
