There are many interpretation of the facts. In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the jurors come from various backgrounds. This leads to many biased and different understanding of the evidences. For example, most jurors believed the boy's connection with the knife supports the fact that he definitely has stabbed his father. However, a few jurors, like juror eight, believes that the boy is not stupid enough to buy the knife at the day of the murder. The different interpretations could even be antithetical from each other because of the person's perspective.
I agree, they have different opinions of facts but some facts were stronger than others. That's why juror 3 couldn't make an argument at the end because the facts were overwhelming and he had no arguments left
ReplyDeleteI agree with you also, since the boy is from the slumps and had a knife it seems obvious to them he did it because he has the label that he's a bad kid and would do that kind of stuff. But you have to look past that you have to look at all the evidence and not there bias opinion. It turns that he actually isn't even guilty which shows not to stereotype people.
ReplyDeleteI also agree, because the different jurors came form many different backgrounds, the way they were brought up, what they were taught as children, and the environment they were in all factor into the opinions each juror forms about different facts.
ReplyDelete