Monday, February 23, 2015
2A
Without time to discuss or communicate the jurors would've just voted him guilty and moved on. But one juror stepped out and created time because he made the decision not be unanimous. He created more time to review the facts and add up all the stories and alibis that were told. He questioned the majority and actually puts up a solid argument, solid enough for other to even join in on this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree, juror 8 had a solid argument for every peice of evidence provided. Even if it meant standing alone to prove his point, he would. This juror inparticularly actually cared to give his reasoning behind what he believed to be true and what he believed to be false, and still listened to the other jurors arguments or thoughts on different parts of the trial or pieces of evidence. While doing so, remained civilized and didn't offend any other jurors in ways that some of the others did.
ReplyDeleteMaking important decisions takes time and effort. In the case of the play, "Twelve Angry Men," Some of the jurors didn't want to discuss longer than they had deemed necessary. It took great courage for juror eight to stick with what his gut was telling him to do. Because the juror was able to explain his point in such a way that the others listened to, he was able to thoroughly investigate a case that ultimately ended up saving the defendants life. Being among the minority can make it difficult to stand up for truth, but determination will eventually always prevail.
ReplyDelete