What did the jurors learn while deliberating the case?About the trial?About themselves?About the Constitution?
While deliberating the case the jurors learn many things about themselves, the trail and the costitution. After the trail the jurors gather in a room together to determine the boy's fate but as they begin talking somethings become evident and not everything is as simple as they thought. The reliablity of they evidance is brought into question and the evidance goes from being incontrotrovertible to doubtable, the first example of this is when the 8th juror reaches switly into his pocket and withdraws a knife. This knife however is the same one as the boy's , the supposed murder weapon. The knife was claimed to be "one of a kind" by the prosecuter, this point made by the prosecution is clearly false and therefore this agument is not longer used in the case, however , this unvieling questions the reliablity of other evidance as thecase slowley unravels. If that's false what else is?. The old man's testimony is debated over as the length of time he said it took his to get to the door it proved unlikely cosidering his leg , his age and the length he would have had to travel. A alternative motive is brought to light by the 9th juror, " Nobody knows him, nobody quotes him, nobody seeks his advice after seventy-five years. That's a very sad thing, to be nothing. A man like this needs to be recognized, to be listened to, to be quoted just once. This is very important. It would be so hard for him to recede into the background...". Here the 9th juror circuitosly says that the man could have did it for fame or out of loneliness, mabye all he is is a lonley old man seeking someone to talk to and wishes to be the centre of attention, and even though it is a twisted idea that a person would be so cruel to send a person off to die out of loneliness is it really that far-fetched? This begins to create incertitude in the minds of the jurors towards the authenticity of the witnesses testimonies and is only made ertain when the last peice of his testimony is proved questionable by the 3rd juror in a argument. 8TH JUROR: But supposing he really did hear it. This phrase, how many times has each of us used it? Probably hundreds, "I could kill you for doing that, darling." "If you do that once more, Junior, I'm going to kill you." "Come on, Rocky, kill him." We say it every day. It doesn't mean we're going to kill someone.---3RD JUROR: Shut up, you son of a bitch! Let me go, God damn it! I'll kill him! I'll kill him! 8TH JUROR: You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you? This is a smug moment for the 8th juror as he catches the 3rd in his trap. The 3rd juror proved the evidance wrong that he was fighting so hard to prove , this ruins the creditablity of the 3rd juror as a impartial observer.This doubt is only strenghtend when the testimony from the woman is quesioned as the 9th juror notices that the woman had circles on the side of her nose meaning she wears glasses the woman testimony was already suspicious as he said she saw the murder through a window across the street in pitch dark trough a moving train but it is still believable. However the woman weaers glasses and as people don't wear glasses in bed how clearly did she see the boy , was it really the boy? or is she guessing? could she be taking a chance for fame? We never find out but it creates doubt.
At the begining of the trail the jurors learn about the constition from the judge. "Murder in the first degree- premeditated homicide- is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. If this is reasonable doubht-then you must bring me a verdcit of not guilty". if, however , there is no reasonable doubt then you must, in good conscience, find the accused guilty. However you decide, your verdict must be unaimous. In the event you find the accused guilty, the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy. The death sentance is mandatory in this case." Here they learn that murder is the most serious charge, if they have reasonable doubt is enough to vote not guilty, they don't need to be certain. However they also learn that they need to be certain to vote guilty and this will ultimatly mean the boy will die and there will be no mercy.
The juror learn a lot about themselves, one of the main thing they learn is that they are prejudice in different ways. 8th juror : " ... look this booy's been kicked around all his life. You know- living in the slum, his mother dead since he was nine. He spent a year and a half in an orphanage while his father servrd a jail term for forgery. That's not a very good start he had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think mabye we owe him a few words thats all."This is a form of prejudice althought it's for good one of the main reasons the 8th juror is giving him a chance is that he thinks he dosn't have a fair one because he comes fromm the slums, he also is prejudice to this fellow jurors here as they are the reason he thinks the boy won't have a fair chance. He thinks they will be prejudice against the boy because he is from the slums.3RD JUROR: Yeah, well I've got (a kid). He's twenty. We did everything for that boy, and what happened? When he was nine he ran away from a fight. I saw him. I was so ashamed I almost threw up. So I told him right out. "I'm gonna make a man outa your or I'm gonna bust you in half trying." Well, I made a man outa him all right. When he was sixteen we had a battle. He hit me in the face. He's big, y'know. I haven't seen him in two years. Rotten kid. You work your heart out...[He breaks off. He has said more than he intended. He is embarrassed.] All right. Let's get on with it. This showcases juror 3's prejudiced , he associates the boy with is son who has obviously causesd him to hurt emotionally "jeez i can feel that knife going in ". His anger with his son is misdirected tot he boy and through the trail he realises he's not his son but also that he is hurt be his son and still wishes to see his "I haven't seen him in two years. Rotten kid".
