ek ruka hua faisla


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
  • where can i find its script to perform theater??
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Nice 1
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

ek ruka hua faisla

  1. 1. EK RUKA HUA FAISLA Submitted by : arnold dheeraj ankit santosh nitish
  2. 2. FACTS PRESENTED IN COURT The knife; the tool used to murder the old man Eye witness 1 – an old man who lived just beneath the house of the victim Eye witness 2 – a lady who lived right across the street just opposite to the victim’s house 4
  3. 3. THE VERDICT*At the start of discussion all agreed that the boy wasguilty except for one i.e. juror 8*Everyone tried to convince him that he was wrong, but hestood his ground and never change his opinion.*After listening to his thought, juror 9 an old mansupported his opinion.*Juror 8 was very creative and came up with great factsabout the case which showed that the boy wasn’t guilty.*With his persuasive power and after learning all thosefacts, the remaining jurors subsequently started to changetheir minds.*Juror 3 however was aggressive and had a sense of selfimportant, did try to prove that the boy was guilty butfinally gave up.
  4. 4.  Juror 8 proved that it was impossible for the old man to heard the noise and to walk down the hall and reaching the front door in 15 sec He lied to the court as he wasn’t known to anybody so he tried seeking attention from the media and the mass people They also proved that the woman lied. Finally decided that the boy was innocent
  5. 5. Social Cognitive Theory :-*Jurors learned and made the final decisions or changed their behavior through social environment and personal factor.*E.g. – juror no. 9 decided to support juror 8’s decision that the boy was innocent where everybody else were against it. Experiential learning :-*All the jurors were learning through direct experience*They were working as a team to come to a final decision in that situation of making verdict. Cognitive theory :-*Based on the facts and finding about the case, they agreed on the final outcome i.e. the boy was innocent
  6. 6. Working as a team:-* Had a common goal to give a verdict and they were interdependent to each other Social loafing :-* Some jurors were less responsible and contributing less in the discussion. Free-rider effect, as some were not giving enough participation under the assumption that others will cover it. Group cohesiveness :-* From the beginning, there were disagreement among some jurors and some were not in the favor that the boy was innocent* Nevertheless, the group stick together and finally made the decision that the boy was innocent, and every jurors respected the decision.* Group dynamics :-* They interacted and some jurors were able to influenced attitudes and behaviors of others.
  7. 7. o Juror 8 leadership could be classified as a democratic leadership. He involves other members actively and asks them their point of view to discuss.o Juror 8 leadership could be classified as a supportive leadership. He provided a great deal of direction and leads with his ideas.o Juror 8 leadership could be described as Transformational Leadership. He had inspired the other jury members to transcend their own self- interest in order to have a meaningful and healthy analysis of the case.
  8. 8. * Stereotyping :* The last person who changed his opinion that the accused was not guilty i.e. juror 3 was actually stereotyping. In the past, his son, a teenager once had fight with him & because of this incident he made a general perception that all teenagers are irresponsible & could indulge in crime very easily.* One of the jurors had a very selective perception he just accepted the evidence that the boy was guilty on its face value & made up his mind which was easier for him to believe without proper thought.* Projection:* According to one of the juror 10, the accused came from slum & poor background. The boy also had a history of small crime. He projected that the boy is guilty, as most of the criminals come from poor & slum background.
  9. 9. COMPARISON BETWEEN THREE JURORSLead roles :Juror 8 :- Played byK.K. RainaJuror 9 :- Played byAnnu KapoorJuror 3 :- Played byPankaj Kapur
  10. 10. J8 :• His perception was very positive.• Initially he was having doubt about the case, butas discussion goes on he was convinced the accusedwasn’t guilty. J9 :• Good perception• Wanted to discuss and listen more about the case J3 :• Bad perception• Always wanted other jurors to be on his side• Forced others to made the decision what hewanted them to make
  11. 11. J8 : Openness to experience :-*Degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity and a preference for novelty and variety. Emotional stability :-*Calm, self confidence and cool.*High Self efficacy Proactive personality :-*Identifying opportunities, showing initiatives and act on them till the desired result comes.* Active constructive :-*Actively participated in the discussion. Took initiatives and ideas were logical and reliable.
  12. 12. J9 : Agreeableness :-*Compassionate, cooperative, warm and agreeable Good listener :-*Was listening to every juror whether positive or negative opinion until he came with valid point. Patience :-*Showed patient when other jurors made inappropriate behaviors with him, Patiently observed everyone’s point of view very closely. J3 : Neuroticism :-*experiencing unpleasant emotions easily such as anger, anxiety, aggression, depression, or vulnerability Narcissism :-*Arrogant, sense of self importance & self admiration, or extreme selfishness.* Active destructive
  13. 13. J8 : Intrinsic motivation :-*Doing his job and trying to achieve the best from the case to get his own satisfaction and fulfillment. Need for achievement (McClelland’s need) :-*He was seeking for excellence, competition, challenging and difficult goals Progression satisfaction :-*He remained at a particular need level until that need was satisfied.
  14. 14. J9 :* He was very supportive and a motivating factor for J8 .* He motivated him to come up with valid points.* When everybody were against J8’s opinion, he stood up in his side J3 : Need for power (McClelland’s theory):-* He wanted to direct, control and influence the jurors’ opinion.
  15. 15. J8 : Persuasive :-*By providing new info, he convinced others to change their minds.*Great communicator*Positive attitude and leadership skills J9 :*Good attitude*Opportunity grabber, he made some relevant points which was the turning point of the case. J3 :*Loud mouthed, Bad attitude*Selfish*Stubborn, Didnt respect others opinion.