April, 20th 2012
1. Do you think that the jury in this movie came to the right decision? Why/why not?
I think that the jury in this movie came to the wrong decision, because I feel that all throughout the deliberation the factual evidence did not have any reasonable doubt lingering above it, which was the complete opposite of the opinion of juror 8, and gradually everyone else. While there was factual evidence presented, juror 8 persuaded all the rest of the jurors at the end to disregard the forensics, and to deduce their own theories, by blatantly stating “what if” questions persuading all jurors to a unanimous decision.
2. Did your opinion of the case change as the movie progressed, or did it stay the same throughout the entire movie? Explain.
My opinion of the case changed as the movie progressed, and did not stay the same throughout the entire movie. In the beginning I felt that the teenage boy was guilty and that the facts were too evident and clear, but slowly I was so fascinated by juror 8’s logic and his thinking ability, it got me interested and swayed my vote for “not guilty” I also believed what juror 8 was saying by his tone of voice, which was clear and rhetorical. He showed the panel a rough estimate on how long it would take for the father to get stabbed, walk with a limp, and still call for help.
3. Juror 8 made the statement, “Prejudice obscures the truth.” Which character(s) based their decisions on prejudice? Explain. Juror 10 is one of the most racist and prejudice of the all the jurors a quote to show this is “Now you’re not going to tell us that we’re supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. I mean, they’re born liars.” When he says this he means/believes that people are born in slums are born to live lives of crime and disseat, even thou juror 5 was born and lived in a slum all his...