12 angry men
12 Angry Men
I believe in the beginning the 2 main jurors who were basing their decisions on prejudice were mainly Jurors #3 and #10. Juror #3 more based on prejudices of young men, particularly because he had such a horrendous relationship with his own son, I feel like this case really hit him close to home and really affected him in a personal way. I believe he let his feelings got in the way of his logical thinking and was practically projecting the anger he had towards his son towards the young men on trial, who had been accused of a horrible crime against his father. Juror #10 was more prejudice of the young suspects race, making statements like; “You know how they are,” and “They’re all the same, all born liars”.
I guess in a way he could have been using reverse discrimination because he wasn’t at all prejudice about the individual or what the witnesses said during their testimonies. But I really don’t believe that Juror #8 was using reverse discrimination but was possibly more interested and paid more attention to the small details of the case then the other jurors. He simply brought up other points that some of the other jurors didn’t catch and just couldn’t think of until brought up by juror #8.
I don’t think it should have been a hung jury because it’s not like all of the jurors made a decision and stuck to it, people were changing their votes, slowly but surely, therefore I don’t think it should have been a hung jury.
Some of the persuasive pieces of evidence are first and foremost the knife, the witness saying it was a rare knife that was one of a kind, and juror #8 went out and proved that. Another piece of evidence was the blueprint of the other man’s apartment, which pretty much proved the older gentlemen would have been able to go out and check everything he said he did.
Juror # 1 aka the foreman was a pretty good leader and kept the jury organized and as focused as possible when things got a bit too out of hand. Juror #2 was more of
I believe in the beginning the 2 main jurors who were basing their decisions on prejudice were mainly Jurors #3 and #10. Juror #3 more based on prejudices of young men, particularly because he had such a horrendous relationship with his own son, I feel like this case really hit him close to home and really affected him in a personal way. I believe he let his feelings got in the way of his logical thinking and was practically projecting the anger he had towards his son towards the young men on trial, who had been accused of a horrible crime against his father. Juror #10 was more prejudice of the young suspects race, making statements like; “You know how they are,” and “They’re all the same, all born liars”.
I guess in a way he could have been using reverse discrimination because he wasn’t at all prejudice about the individual or what the witnesses said during their testimonies. But I really don’t believe that Juror #8 was using reverse discrimination but was possibly more interested and paid more attention to the small details of the case then the other jurors. He simply brought up other points that some of the other jurors didn’t catch and just couldn’t think of until brought up by juror #8.
I don’t think it should have been a hung jury because it’s not like all of the jurors made a decision and stuck to it, people were changing their votes, slowly but surely, therefore I don’t think it should have been a hung jury.
Some of the persuasive pieces of evidence are first and foremost the knife, the witness saying it was a rare knife that was one of a kind, and juror #8 went out and proved that. Another piece of evidence was the blueprint of the other man’s apartment, which pretty much proved the older gentlemen would have been able to go out and check everything he said he did.
Juror # 1 aka the foreman was a pretty good leader and kept the jury organized and as focused as possible when things got a bit too out of hand. Juror #2 was more of