Prejudices...and some other stuff

The prejudices of the various jurors (which we defined as any prior judgements they may have brought with them) clearly play a significant role in the case's progression. In response to Mr. Perkins' question on the topic, I believe prejudices can be useful in many instances but can certainly be quite the opposite in others. It all depends on the weightiness of the situation and the ability of the one making judgements to recognize and understand the tendencies in him/herself.

In more trivial circumstances, it may not hurt to base judgements on preconceptions, but in 12 Angry Men, the seriousness of the verdict to be reached makes it much more crucial for the jurors to look beyond personal biases and avoid any oversights. (They obviously don't all do that immediately though). Predispositions based on past experiences can be beneficial so long as their holder is not, as Ryan said, completely blinded by them. He/she should know that there are always exceptions to generalizations and should remain able to set prejudices aside and examine a situation from an objective standpoint. If that can be done, then prejudices can often be utilized as a viable starting point. Stereotypes, after all, are always derived from some truth. However, inferences really shouldn't be made without complete certainty, especially in a case with the kind of impact the one in the movie has.

Another thing I'd like to point out after all of the class discussions we've had about knowledge is that it's important to realize that the jurors do not, by any means, have to know that the boy is innocent to acquit him--they just must not know that he's guilty. Unless they're absolutely certain that the boy killed his father, they're really obligated to declare him innocent according to our legal system, though I kind of doubt that that principle is taken completely literally...how can we really know or prove anything?