Part One - 2A
To get to the bottom of a problem takes a great amount of time and effort. Complex problems, are not something that you can take at face value. You have to know the actual facts of the situation and not make assumptions off of what it may appear to be. In the play Twelve Angry Men, not many jurors wanted to really analyze the case. Most wanted to hurry up and get home so, based on the location of the murder or where the kid grew up, and the two testimonies made by an elder man in the same building, and an elderly woman across the street, jurors didn't need much more to prove the defendants guilt. But through out each act, Juror 8 continued to point out different points in the trial or in the witnesses testimonies that didn't really add up. As this continued, more jurors had a reasonable doubt in their minds as to the guilt of the defendant. If it weren't for the analysis of the case, the problem wouldn't of been solved and an innocent person could've been sent to prison for a crime he did not commit.
Great! I like how you talk about Juror 8 pointing out different points in the trial. Juror 8's perseverance indefinably shows off his personality in the way that he will become assertive in order to find out the truth. In Act 2 he shows this trait off by going off on everyone while presenting the evidence that no one bothered to look at. I agree that if Juror 8 hadn't have stepped in, the defendant may have ended up in bars.
ReplyDelete