12 angry men

This was probably the material I had enjoyed the most in this class. I initially had difficulty following the jurors, but the personalities of each were established early on in the script. It amazes me how Reginald could make such a captivating book when there is one main setting (the jury room) and the entire dialogue is debating the conviction of a young man on a order trial. Juror 8 is exceptional, managing to contradict each point the prosecutor made that those who wanted to choose a guilty verdict repeated during their discussion. The jury’s ending verdict represents the compliance in society. The jurors, 11 of the 12, voted on a guilty verdict primarily and eventually all changed their vote to not guilty based on juror 8's insistence that he was young and not capable of murder. Though we would like to believe we always follow our best instincts, the juror who was immovable in his opinions, when standing alone, conceded to the majority vote. It's amazing how influenced we are by those around us and how even the support of one other person can make someone that much more confidant in what they believe. Why do people question their own beliefs because others don't necessarily agree? Why is having a differing opinion than the majority a situation that makes people uncomfortable? Innovation, and progress in society has been a direct result of individuals thinking critically and coming up with new ideas. For what seemed to be an “obvious” guilty verdict, the debate made all of those who thought the defendant was guilty question their own ability to think critically and analyze the information presented. It seemed all too easy for Juror 8 to negate the points such as the woman who witnessed the murder, the time it took the old man to witness the defendant fleeing the scene and the supposed “unique” knife.