Saturday, February 28, 2015
Prt 2- 3A
When the play first started, every one was against juror 8. He was alone and had no one to support his thoughts. Then near towards the end of the play the count on guilty-nonguilty was 6 to 6. By then coalitions had already formed. Juror 8 had 5 more people to support his thoughts on what really happened to the victim.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that at the end of Act II, Juror 8 had more people to support his thoughts. On the other hand, Juror 3 had the whole jury on his side in the beginning but that did not really seem to help him due to the strength and confidence of Juror 8's arguments. This being said, I do not believe alliances really strengthened anyone's arguments because of how the trial played out. When Juror 3 had 10 other jury members saying the defendant was guilty, his argument wasn't stronger or weaker. Because of the huge coalition of people saying the defendant was guilty, I believe this helped Juror 8 more than anyone.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Brandon said. Juror three did have most of the jury on his side in Act one but they never said on his side. So really there were no set groups of cliques because everyone switched sides a couple times and never stayed on the same side with the same person the whole play.
ReplyDeleteI agree that juror eight was the one who had the most persuasive strategy and that he was not alone with his opinion at the end of the play. My only point would be that even though there is guilty and not guilty, those aren't cliques. Cliques are social groups and none of these jurors knew each other before the trial. So, even though there can be two sides to an argument, that doesn't mean that they are set groups. Most of the jurors swayed back and forth from guilty and not guilty throughout the play anyways.
ReplyDelete