In the play, Twelve Angry Men, Juror Eight claims that the defendant is not guilty because of reasonable doubt. While he has nothing but a feeling of doubt to back up his decision at first, he continues to stand his ground on the choice. During the defending of this, more and more evidence to back up his viewpoint becomes apparent to the reader (or audience) and helps a few more of the jurors question their intuitions on their previous statements of guilty.
Juror Eight went against the major argument and made the some of the others see the fault in making a quick, rash decision based on what they feel. While humans tend to make the right choices when following their gut, sometimes the feelings we receive that lead to these choices are because of previous ideas placed inside our heads. While there is not enough evidence yet as to whether or not Eight might be on the right side of the play, his challenging of intuitions has lead me to believe that it's a very big possibility that the defendant is not guilty.
I liked what you said about choices made based on 'gut instincts' being based on previous ideas put in our heads, because I think a lot of the time the things people say to us, things we see on tv, hear in music, etc. do influence us without our knowing. Things that seem like instinct can really be effects of what we've previously heard.
ReplyDelete