In the play Twelve Angry Men, Juror eight proved that the
supposed eye witness’s testimonies were false. However, even after Juror eight
proved the testimonies false, three other jurors still believed that the defendant
was guilty. Why is that? It is because the jurors simply interpreted the facts
differently. The statement “there are many interpretations of the facts,”
describes what can only be an opinion. But one must be careful not to entangle
fact and opinion. As seen in the play, juror number ten mixed up his own
prejudice or opinion with the facts when he said, “These people (individuals
that live in the slums) are drinking and fighting all the time, and if somebody
gets killed, so somebody gets killed” (Rose 59). Not every person from the “slums” fights or
drinks all the time, but juror tens beliefs still influenced the way he looked at the
facts.
I believe that 2 out of the 3 juror's interpreted the facts differently. I believe juror three knew the facts and interpreted them as juror eight did but did not the defendant to be guilty. As he said earlier in the play, he had a son who misbehaved like the defendant. I believe that juror three wanted the defendant to be guilty so that it would relieve him that a misbehaving child has been justified.
ReplyDeleteThe way that the jurors, especially juror ten, viewed the facts could have had a direct link to their past experiences. But based on the dialogue, you sometimes have to wonder what could have happened to juror tent that made him think so lowly of these kids in the slums.
ReplyDelete