Unreasonble doubt?

I think that the movie is interesting and addresses some interesting questions about the legal system and "true" knowledge. Unfortunately, it's kind of sobering to think that people (not just in a movie) are not willing to take some of their time to really, truly think about the life of a young man. With the exception of the lone juror, the other eleven jurors were unwilling to really think about all of the possibilities -- they instead based their decision on their own prejudices and because they believed they had other, more important things to do. It is truly the responsibility of the jurors to debate and discuss the situation, and then make an assessment on ANY reasonable doubt. As a juror in that situation, I would be seriously be thinking about whether or not I could sleep at night knowing I sentenced an eighteen year old kid to death after a fifteen minute conversation.

As far as prejudice and personal experience, I think its bound to have an impact on any court case -- or for that matter, on any decision in life. Despite these prejudices, it is important to learn to fairly assess the situation without being completely blinded by prejudice (like the angry juror). Personal experience can also be useful, although it is not something that someone should base an entire decision on. I think prejudice and experience will always influence your opinions -- it's just important to be open-minded.

oh and this is Ryan btw