I think that the prejudice that some of the jurors employ forces them to make assumptions and overlook several important details in the case. However, their prejudice is sometimes based on personal experience rather that being conjured from thin air....so their opinions cannot be completely overlooked even though they are biased. Using the personal experiences of these men to condemn the boy is just as risky and as likely to be incorrect as using the personal experiences (acknowledging his purchase of a duplicate knife from a local pawn shop as valid, relying upon his mini testimony about living near the "L" train, etc.) of the gentleman who originally voted "not guilty" in order to maintain the boy's innocence. From a legal point of view, the boy should be considered innocent until proven guilty...however with the type of trial he received...the jury was ready to convict him and reluctant to delve deeper into the evidence. So far the "not gulity" gentleman has provided reason to doubt the boy's guilt.....but has yet to completely convince me of his innocence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I really understand what you're saying--the jurors' biased opinions should be considered (after all, they are entitled to thier opinions) but the one thing that is bothering me is that you said that the "not-guilty" gentleman has provided reason to doubt the suspect's guilt but has not provided enough evidence to convince you that the he is innocent. In our legal system, the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution; just like the gentleman said, the suspect could have gone to court undefended and still have a chance of being acquitted. I think that in many cases, it's really hard to see something objectively, and that is one of the problems that is being faced in the movie by the jurors.
Post a Comment