1. Do you think that the jury in this motion picture came to the right decision? Why/why not?
I think that the jury in this film pertained to the wrong decision, due to the fact that I feel that all throughout the consideration the factual evidence did not have any sensible doubt sticking around above it, which was the complete opposite of the viewpoint of juror 8, and gradually everyone else. While there was accurate proof presented, juror 8 persuaded all the remainder of the jurors at the end to neglect the forensics, and to deduce their own theories, by blatantly specifying “what if” concerns persuading all jurors to a consentaneous choice.
2. Did your viewpoint of the case modification as the motion picture advanced, or did it remain the very same throughout the whole motion picture? Explain.
My opinion of the case altered as the motion picture progressed, and did not remain the very same throughout the entire film. In the start I felt that the teenage boy was guilty and that the realities were too obvious and clear, but slowly I was so interested by juror 8’s logic and his thinking capability, it got me interested and swayed my vote for “not guilty” I likewise believed what juror 8 was saying by his tone of voice, which was clear and rhetorical.
He revealed the panel a rough price quote on for how long it would consider the daddy to get stabbed, stroll with a limp, and still call for help.
3. Juror 8 made the declaration, “Bias obscures the reality.” Which character(s) based their choices on prejudice? Explain. Juror 10 is among the most racist and prejudice of the all the jurors a quote to show this is “Now you’re not going to inform us that we’re expected to think that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I’ve lived among ’em all my life. You can’t think a word they state. I indicate, they’re born phonies.” 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 resided in a run-down neighborhood all his life he is a perfectly reputable man. This proves that juror 10 was incorrect and people born in run-down neighborhoods aren’t born to lie and dedicate criminal offense.
4. Why do you think Juror 3 held out so long prior to altering his mind at the end?
Juror 3 is the last to alter his mind because of his grudge against kids; this grudge in between him and his boy had actually originated from a fight and right away his child left house and has actually never ever seen him in more than two years. Since that occurrence juror 3 has had an individual dislike against kids which is evident when juror 3 says “‘that goddamn rotten kid, I know him, what they’re like. What they do to you. How they eliminate you every day. My God, don’t you see? How come I’m the only one who sees? Jeez, I can feel that knife entering.'” This shows that juror 3 thinks he knows every kid in the whole world and knows that they are disrespectful and unthankful. But by the end of consideration when he was the only male ballot guilty, he was overwhelmed with pressure by the jurors and his bottled sensations for his boy that instantly come out, realizing that he can not deal with the teenage young boy like his kid, and hence treat him relatively.
5. Did this film supply an accurate representation of jury deliberation? Explain. The consideration was for pure home entertainment but likewise great acting was presented by the jurors as they showed the environment in a deliberation space, as the testimony of lots of jurors in real life explain that they are extremely distressed to leave and want to rapidly go home, who may listen to a case for days. Such jurors like juror 3 remembered and kept in mind proof and factual details, though it is really uncommon for jurors to remember, it is legal and reveals that some can remember while other are better to compose things down. But one scene that rang an alarm for me is when juror 8 highlighted the comparable knife utilized in the criminal offense scene, to show “that anybody might have put a knife at the crime scene.” He must have been begun the jury the minute he went out and purchased the knife. By law, juries are not enabled to conduct their own investigations, and if the other jurors had simply reported Juror No.
8 for that, he ‘d have been replaced by an alternate. Yes, it’s cool for characters in a motion picture to take the law into their own hands. In real life, you like to leave jobs like that to the people who have years of training and police experience. Even with that, Juror No. 8’s whole line of thinking is incorrect at nearly every step. According to the law, it’s the jury’s task to identify the accuracy of the proof presented, as is– not to concern and translate the proof any way they select and make wild presumptions about witnesses. For example, you don’t just dismiss blood evidence as “most likely planted” unless you are presented with evidence that it has been planted.
Likewise, you can’t simply hand-wave away jury statement based upon, “There were indents on her nose.”
6. Rotten Tomatoes offered this movie a 100% score. Are you surprised? Was this warranted? I am not amazed that Rotten Tomatoes gave this film 100% score; it is a very unique movie that has only 12 characters and one setting, which captures a complex-riddled discussion using rhetorical, sensible, metaphorical plans and a package of jaw-dropping acting by Henry Fonda.
But in my viewpoint, I would rate this motion picture a 92% ranking since though we discovered in law class on the duties and procedure in jury task and deliberation numerous scenes would portray the opposite which captured my attention, but I understand that some parts were made to catch the audience’s attention throughout the film, which indeed they did and needed to tweak the truth.