Getting to the bottom of complex issue can take a lot of time and effort. This lesson can be seen in Twelve Angry Men because of all the different mindsets of each juror. While some of the jurors were biased coming in, at least one of the jurors had some doubt and wanted to help the defendant at least have a chance. Being a life-changing situation for a teenager, this situation had to be taken seriously.
11 of the Jury members immediately believed he was guilty while only Juror 8 did not want to buy in. Because of this, the jury had to listen to Juror 8 on why he thought the defendant "was not guilty until [they] say he is guilty" (Rose 14). Because of situations with doubt, many discussions and arguments had to be made in order to come to an unbiased conclusion.
This exemplifies the nature of humans to form their own opinions despite the thoughts of others. Juror 8 could have easily given in and agreed with the others, but she stuck with what she believed. It also shows the ability of humans to be persuaded and to change their opinions with even the smallest bit of evidence in that juror 8 was able to get some of the other jurors to change their stance on the trial by herself without the help of others.
ReplyDeleteI agree it's good to have a mediator in a situation like this, but what I find interesting is the strong will of Juror 8. What if he had just gone with everyone else and voted guilty? What if the odds of winning eleven against one discouraged him from trying?
ReplyDelete