Higher Values appeals to abstract notions of effectiveness, fairness, righteousness, etc… He stresses on the responsibilities each jury member has for the boys’ life, and how the defense attorney’s lax arguments were inadequate and unfair. Through the process, he continually points out details that the lawyer missed, perhaps deliberately, that would have helped the boys’ case. Juror #8 initially and continually yielded to his own conscience and did not want to unjustly condemn a child to death unless he truly felt it was necessary. He also attempted to appeal to other jurors to feel a sense of personal values, and put themselves in the boys place. He expressed that they would want their Jury to do everything they can in dissecting the evidence and making the correct decision for their lives. Another example of Higher Values is when Juror #6 is protecting the integrity of Juror #9 by standing up for him against Juror #3. As most of us are taught to have respect for our elders, Juror #6 exemplified his own personal higher values in this situation by expressing his assertiveness against Juror #3.
After assuming his leadership role in being responsible for proper dialog and fighting for the boys’ life in a not guilty verdict, he began to get others to relax their views and become more open to different points of view. Juror #8 leads the groups into Tuckman’s third stage of group development, Norming, as he begins to