I had my doubts when I started watching „12 angry men” as I am really skeptical of death penalty. I also don’t believe that group of men, who probably have similar opinions, background and views, should be allowed to decide whether a young man should die or not in a matter of seconds. But maybe it is easier to not be fully responsible, but share the responsibility with others. And maybe it is easier to go along with the majority view.
I am glad that Juror 8 decided to give this young man a benefit of the doubt. Most members of the jury believed (or wanted to believe) that the case of the murder is easy and clear. I am aware that probably after the hearing, with these kind of testimonies, evidence and because of the lack of other possible suspects, the decision to find him guilty was more or less understandable. But I believe in good old fashion doubts. When they started questioning every evidence and testimonies, it appeared that judgment should not be so obvious. Especially when one’s life depends on our decision.
Please select the Tab Content in the Widget Settings.