response to mr perkins

Why is prejudice not a good way of knowing in this instance? Can prejudice ever be a useful way of knowing?

Many jurors automatically think the boy is guilty just because of his background, from "slums". Prejudice is not a good way because it does not target everyone. Some individuals are different, one of the jurors is also from "slums". In most of the cases, prejudice might be true. There are more crimes in a "slums" background. It can be a useful way of knowing if used correctly.

What role has personal experience played in the knowledge of the jurors? When has personal experience proved to be a faulty way of knowing and when has it proved beneficial?

Personal experiences are often used in their argument. Some played a beneficial role: the old juror relating himself to talk about how the old witness might just want attention and give false information; a guy bought the same kind of knife as the one said to be unusual. Personal experience also played a faulty way: one juror being an executor, deeply desires death, he think people from "slums" all deserve to die; another guy, relating to his own son, think they are all the same.

Do you think the gentleman who originally voted "not guilty" proved, to your satisfaction, that there is reasonable doubt in this case? Why or why not?

He did prove that there is a reasonable doubt, but he still can't explain all the problems beside using the word "possible". He does have many good point, such as the accuracy of witnesses, the knife, the time it took to finish the crime, the possibility to forget the movie's name under emotional burden... etc.

These are my opinions so they might not be right.
~Yilun Wang