The Tough Kid Case Study Answers

Juror Threes background of a personal connection with his own “Tough Kid” affects his decision making by creating bias against the defendant. He shouldn’t of been allowed to even serve on the case if a proper background check had been done. Anyone who has even been in a remotely similar situation to the case in the place of either side is forbidden to be a juror. Juror Three revealed in a deliberation about the case about his past saying, “You’re right. It's the kids. The way they are—you know? They don't listen. (Bitter) I've got a kid. When he was eight years old, he ran away from a fight. I saw him. I was so ashamed, I told him right out, "I'm gonna make a man out of you or I'm gonna bust you up into little pieces trying." When he was fifteen
This is because probably once his connected his own experiences, he was intolerant and ignorant to anything or anyone in favor of his side. This is why when Juror Eight was initially disagreeing, he became rapidly short tempered and made seemingly meaningless comments about how the kid just has to be guilty. He had no actual evidence, but because he was biased, he saw that as reason enough. Also, his description describes to having a streak of sadism. Sadism is defined as the tendency to derive pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others. This child being convicted guilty would cover all of his sadist bases. The child just being convicted would be humiliating, he would suffer in prison, and he would of course be killed eventually. Why wouldn’t Juror Three want him to be convicted as guilty. It is in his personality to want to make people suffer. Even when there was substantial evidence of his innocence, he still voted guilty. It was in his character to be biased towards this kid. From his background to his central personality, he was prejudice against him from the very