As the jury entered into the jury room, the air inside the room was hot, which can also be symbolic to the intensity of the case. In the beginning of the jury room discussion, the members are preoccupied with their own life, for some it was just a duty to do anyway without understanding the depth of the case. According to the law, the vote of the jury should be twelve to nothing either way to prove the boy guilty or not guilt. The best solution was to have a preliminary vote. The discussion heated up when one of the jury voted ‘not guilty’ against the eleven.
If there was a crime committed in the community, the accused was brought to a jury. The judge presided over the trial and served as a legal expert… The jury heard the events and accused guilty or not-guilty (Is The American Jury System Still A Good Idea? ).” Jury trials should remain an option because because we as Americans have the right of the seventh , jurors are only told 100 percent of proven information, and the jurors are not influenced by media, people, or unproven information to make a decision and the
"Don 't judge a book by its cover" is a famous saying that some of us heard it before and some of us experienced it. 12 jurors were experiencing this quote when they gathered to decide whether a young boy is guilty by killing his father or not. Juror 2 stated, "Well, anyway, I think he was guilty" (6). Juror 2 represent most of us, as sometimes we judge from what we hear and not from what we see. The 12 jurors are from various backgrounds and each one has a distinctive personality.
In this paragraph, the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury will be discussed. The main advantages are that juries introduce community values into the legal process and can influence the system (Joyce, 2013); they can achieve a sense of equity and fairness without enforcing unjust laws; in addition, juries are independent and neutral (Davies, 2015). Moreover, they guarantee participation from the public in a democratic institution (Hostettler, 2004), and represent the population thanks to the randomness with which jurors are decided (Davies, 2015). On the other hand, the most important disadvantages are that jurors have no prior contact with the courts, no training (Hostettler, 2004) and therefore they lack knowledge of law, courtroom proceedings (Joyce, 2013), and lack of ability to understand the legal directions (Thomas, 2010). Moreover, they must face evidence which is highly technical (Hostettler, 2004).
The jurors took literally almost day just bickering and arguing over whether the boy was guilty or not. In act two the jurors were starting to change their mind about their vote on whether or not the boy was guilty or not. That is where they started to kind of come to an agreement. From the beginning of act one juror number eight was always on the boys side, and the other guys always questioned why he thought the boy was innocent. Juror number eight did not have a reason he said “ he’s nineteen years old”.
Jurors should not know anything about a specific case and not follow public affairs and read the news (Doc F). When a person is selected to be part of a jury, they have to say an oath stating that they will not use their emotions to determine the verdict of a trial. If a juror is caught using their emotions, they will be fined for a crime called perjury. Since there are twelve people in a jury, there is a variation of opinions when the jury decides a verdict. But, a judge is more professional and knows how to only use the evidence provided and be less biased.
The jury has no idea that the conversation had happened so they did not have enough information to deliver a verdict of guilty. The jury was not able to get all the information, but if the did, Steve would definitely be
But when it comes to reaching a verdict in the case, #4 is completely unsympathetic, saying, the boy's entire story was flimsy and he also claimed that he was at the movies. He couldn't even remember what pictures he saw and that it was little ridiculous. While he might seem cold and harsh, Juror #4 is actually not all that bad. For one thing, he's totally willing to be swayed by evidence. He tosses aside some of the early arguments about the defendant's innocence not because he's prejudiced, but because he doesn't believe
Time and again, he uses this fallacy so that other jurors could empathize and connect with the boy. 2) “He is just 18, he couldn't have possibly done such thing. “ “Supposing they're wrong...Could they be wrong? ...They're only people. People make mistakes.
The jurors contradict themselves by starting off saying one thing and then later they say or do the exact opposite. Juror number seven in the play contradicted himself at the very beginning by saying the nineteen year old boy who was accused of stabbing his father in the stomach was completely quilty (Rose 315). The only reason Juror seven sided with the defendant being guilty at the beginning is because he didn’t want to sit in on the court case for a long time period because he had tickets for a baseball game which he thought was more of a priority than jury duty. He accused him of being guilty thinking everyone else would as well, therefore the case would end much earlier. He then contradicted himself by saying he was guilty for the longest time and then towards the end he was the only one out of a few others who said he was not guilty.