Juror 8 simply puts out questions and asks people to challenge their own beliefs. He is prepared to allow anyone to keep their own opinion without compromising his own.…
5. Juror #8 was able to convince the other 11 jurors simply because he presented good, valid arguments. He also knew how to separate the fact and fiction from the given facts.…
In a crowded jury room, opinions collide as discussions about the innocence of a young boy are decided. The dark and foreboding storm clouds that hang over the heads of the jurors are beginning to lift as time progresses and new facts are presented. The two men that cannot put their personal emotions aside are juror 3 and juror 10. These men are motivated by their emotions rather than the evidence.…
The 8th Juror is a key character throughout the play. He is the only dissenter who votes ‘not guilty’ in the very beginning and says ‘it’s not easy to raise hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.’ As a logical, gentle and thoughtful character, the 8th Juror slowly works out the way to make the jury rethink the case and the possibility of the boy not killing his…
He believes that Juror 8 and Juror 9’s input is driven by biases that are “a bit far-fetched” (Act I, page 32). However, Juror 8, as the center of the discussion, constructively points out certain aspects of the case the makes Juror 4 skeptical about Juror 8’s statements. For example, when Juror 8 wonders how long it takes for an elevated train to pass a given point, Juror 4 inquisitively states, “All right. Say ten Seconds. What are you getting at?” (Act I, page 34). This conveys that he understands that Juror 8 has a point to make, but his intentions are not truly rational in accordance with the facts. Furthermore, Juror 4 claims “You’ve made some excellent points. The last one… was very persuasive. But I still believe the boy is guilty of murder. I have two reasons. One: the evidence given by the woman across the street who actually saw the murder committed. Two: the fact that the woman described the stabbing…” (Act II, page 66). According to Juror 4, the woman’s claim makes logical sense. Although Juror 4 is not yet convinced that the young man is not a murderer, he does value Juror 8’s…
Juror #Eight is such a great man to turn someone’s life upside down and make him survive such a horrible penalty such as death penalty which no one’s get a chance to correct his mistakes no more, or even regret it, because it just ends the life of that person forever.…
These jurors want to end the trial fast and give the judge the most obvious verdict. Which is "Guilty." However, the #8 juror opposes to the so called obvious verdict, so the others get upset and angry. This also triggers their wanting to have a reasonable answer to their discomfort. They continously show disrespect to the #8 juror redirecting the attention to some jokes and games showing their disatisfaction till the first big point is made. And it goes on shifting one by one to the otherside. However, the #8 juror started it because he only wanted to hear more about the boy's life and his circumstances. But as the conversation went on the small points made by others helped him think of ways to prove the kid "not guilty." Thats what I think.…
As juror 8's campaign continues, and the seed of doubt planted into the "guilty" minded jury members is fertilised thorough the analysing of facts the reasonable doubt slowly grows in the jurors minds, the audience begin to create an understanding that doubt is an easier state of mind…
Even though race salience in an influential variable for juror and racial bias, it seems unclear on how jurors prejudges the defendants to actually determine the sentencing and the verdict. The next article discusses on how pretrial information can make a huge difference in a mock juror’s sentencing. However, depending on the pretrial restrictions on the media, the pretrial publicity (PTP) may reach potential jurors, which may affect the jurors’ ability to objectively assess the evidence in the trial and to make an informed verdict.…
Twelve men from all walks of life were gathered in a small room to make a life-or-death decision of a 16-year-old boy on suspicion of murder of his own father. Eleven of twelve jurors were strongly convinced that the boy is guilty based on the evidences that suggest the boy is guilty. However, one of the jurors had reasonable doubt about it and started to convince the others. They started to look at the case and evidences precisely again, and discovered that those evidences are incorrect.…
Throughout the play there is ‘reasonable doubt’ and this is what results in all the jurors being convinced that the ‘kid’ is “not guilty.” The 8th juror possesses a clear understanding of the law and he informs the other mean that “the burden of proof is on prosecution” and continually focuses on whether or not reasonable doubt exists as to the defendant’s guilt. The verdict would’ve been…
Juror #3 came into this trial with a moral dilemma long before hearing the facts of the case. Given his past experiences, he would feel more inclined to vote guilty as to punish and make an example of this boy so that other kids would think twice. In this case if the jury decided on a guilty verdict, the defendant would be put to death. People might make rash decisions based…
Jury selection are various methods used to decide who will be on the jury. The jury pool is initially chosen from among the community utilizing a random strategy. Jury records are gathered from voter enlistments and driver permit/state id. From these records, some people are mailed. They will be addressed in court by the judge and/or lawyers in the U.S. According to Shari Seidman, in some cases such as capital punishment, the jury must be death qualified. Jury procedures are taught in law institutions to law students. The jury chose is said to have been empanaled.…
Having a Jury Trial is known to be a part of the Adversarial System. Which is when exhibits, evidence, and witnesses are assembled by representatives of one side or the other to convince the fact finder that their side’s viewpoint is the truer one. Contrasted to that approach is the inquisitorial approach, used in mostly Europe. In this approach the Judge is given more control over the proceedings. The judge will interrogate the disputing parties and witnesses, referring frequently to a dossier that the court prepared. The Jury Trial is held to get a less biased decision and also a more truthful one. A trial gives attorneys more motivation to present the jury with all the evidence of the case, with a final goal of the jury ultimately…
The US Constitution grants citizens the right to trial by a jury of your peers. In other words, it grants citizens the right to be judged by average ordinary rather than by lawyers or judges.…