Separating Fact From Fancy
Emotions, the feelings we have as humans that for the most part dominate our everyday Lives. To separate fact from fancy is nearly asking us not to do what we were engineered to do, to act on emotion.
Consistently throughout this play Juror #3 is a profound antagonist who seems to have a strong distrust with younger generations. He consistently says “they” or “the way they are these days”. Juror #8 shows his point of how the defendant in this case could have had a reason not to remember everything as he was interrogated in the same apartment his fathers body was still sitting and that under such pressure who could remember anything. Once Juror # 8 breaks down that argument we all are able to see why Juror #3 has his prejudices once he breaks down about his relationship with his son.
Juror #10 blatantly shows his bitter dislike and prejudice for who he refers to as “them”, he says that the boy can’t be trusted because he is one of “them” and that he can’t remember what movie he saw because he’s one of “them”. Juror # 8 soon separates the fact from fancy of Juror #10’s argument. Juror #10 appears to have be unfazed by the fact that a boys life is on the line and all the other jurors soon see he just doesn’t want the defendant to live especially when he claims to not trust “them” until one of “them” says something that helps him. So through much trial and error we see how the facts can always beat sometimes irrational fancies.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document