Juror 11 Was Not Guilty

Satisfactory Essays
This is an interesting story. It was a lot more interesting than I thought it would be. I'm going to choose juror 11 because I thought it was interesting how he constantly saw the bigger picture of democracy and choice during the whole process. He voted "not guilty" after enough evidence was presented that the old man could not have walked to his door in 15 seconds and therefore couldn't have seen or heard what he said he did, which is a good reason for a "reasonable doubt". It did look like juror 11 wanted to see justice done and he did not vote "guilty" or later, "not guilty" because others voted one way or another. He listened to all the arguments and changed his mind during the third vote. Though it does look like he was listening and repeating more than anything else. He was a bit of a social loafer especially in the beginning. He didn't have any original arguments and only agreed with the people coming up with the arguments. It is possible that he was undecided before he voted not guilty and therefore couldn't come up with anything of value, but that would also mean that he wasn't 100% sure when he was voting "guilty". It's possible that he somewhat felt like the defendant was guilty but because he was presented with a choice, he chose "guilty". His behavior could also be explained by the group polarization effect.…show more content…
This was the first time juror 11 got angry, which seems like an unusual thing for him to do. He pointed out that a man's life is at stake and that the juror should definately have a very good reason for voting "guilty" or "not guilty". After which, juror 7 became hesitant and not so sure of himself. I think at that point he started to become embarrassed about his words and his actions and the evaluation apprehension theory might have been the
Get Access