[Daveman]

If I taught sociology, I would use this film as an example of group work. I have seen both the 1957 and 1997 versions of this. Technically, the 57’ version is not the original. There was a TV version done a few years before that, which I have not seen.

Anyway, I find it to be a very interesting film to say the least. The vast majority of it is filmed in one room- a jury room. The dialogue is extremely well written. The murder trail itself is never shown, but there is enough information given about it through the discussion that the viewer is not left in the dark about any of it.

Eleven of the twelve jurors are initially content with giving a guilty verdict. Juror number eight, originally played by the great Henry Fonda and later by an older version of Jack Lemmon, votes innocent. He is not satisfied that the defendant was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He is deviating from the rest of the entire group, and most of the other group members don’t really feel like discussing the issue. I remember that one of them is looking forward to a ball game later that day and wants to leave. Many of the others have a similar attitude. They are, of course, not happy with juror number eight. And the entire movie is about this one juror who persuades the rest of the group to plead not guilty.

It sounds almost too simple to be an entire movie, but it is wonderfully written. I find it to be a very good representation of what would happen in such a circumstance. Speaking from my own experience, it can be difficult to not conform to the majority, but I have and will continue to do it, if I feel that it is the right thing to do. Trying to persuade people can be an exhausting process, and people have to actually be willing to listen to you. I have come across many people who will try to bicker with me like children, and I have also come across people who will tell me (basically)…

“Opinions are like assholes. Everybody’s got one.”

I do not accept either of these responses.

My personal favorite moment in the film is when one of the jurors concedes to vote not guilty, because he is tired and wants to leave. Another juror gets up in his face and says, “That’s not good enough. You tell us WHY you are voting not guilty.”

So my question to you, dear INFJ forum reader is:

Would you being willing to do what juror number eight does in the film, if you believed strongly in a cause?

 

[Bright Laughter]

If it's something that serious, and my gut says the person is not guilty - you're damn skippy I'd do what juror number 8 did. I have to sleep with myself at night.

 

[John Athix]

If I believed strongly enough in a cause, I would do almost anything to help it.

 

[Jwing24]

Yes I would totally go with what I thought, if I felt strongly enough about it in this serious situation.

This is not the best parallel, but it's my own example. I quit a job to try another career out, unpaid, knowing that if I didn't like it I basically quit a job and will have to find another one. A lot of people I know think it's stupid, including recruiters. But I wouldn't take it back, I would do it again. Because I believe in it, it was right for me. If a recruiter is not willing to help me because of that, that's fine with me. As someone said above, you have to sleep with yourself at night.

 

[MusicalMonsta]

I think any defendant deserves the true consideration of all of the jurors designated to the case. Once the verdict is made, it is final and it can possibly change that defendant's life forever. So I believe if there is beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant might be guilty (or not guilty in this case), then the jury should give their best effort to make an unbiased and unselfish decision. An easy assessment of this situation is to just put yourself in the defendant's shoes. If your entire case is dependent on just 12 people, would you want justice to be served unjustly because the jury is too lazy to care about you?

"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You"

So, I believe what juror number 8 did was absolutely what I would have done in that situation, and I think it should be the standard in the jury deliberating procedure. A verdict needs to unanimous, with no doubts whatsoever.

 

[Munjeni]

This is actually one of my favourite movies (the '57 version). It is so simple, yet very, very profound.

I think I would probably act like juror 8, unbiased, and unwilling to destroy someone's life until I was completely certain that they were guilty. Not only that, but I would attempt to discuss it until everyone else was equally certain. We only have one life, it is short, and when you get a chance to influence another persons very existence, you have an obligation to get to the truth of the matter, before making the decision.

After all, you have to be able to live with yourself afterwards...

 

[Zomboy]

If I knew a way to prove it, then I'd do it. I'd mess around with the other jurors until they were 'persuaded' into my way of thinking. Lol

 

[Resolution]

When things seem so clear and I was defending a life... I can be as stubborn as a mule.

I would argue, and get increasingly more and more aggravated as I argued... probably after about 20 minutes of back-and-forth I'd accuse the jurors of being "out for blood" and that their willful and irresponsible use of juror power disgusted me.

(I tend to get emotional during debates where the stakes are this high)

 

[Zomboy]

Btw, I first imagined this as a "12 angry men in an alley" sort of scenario.

Where of course I'd bust out the Bruce Lee moves and deliver them some good 'ol chinese takeout.

Did you see what I did there? Haha.

 

[kateykinz]

I loved that movie (old version) when I saw it...I must have been about 12 at the time. I've only watched it the once, and I didn't bother watching the remake, as I didn't see what could be added the original.

I would totally stand up for what I believed to be right, especially since the entire future of a man would be literally in my hands. Only problem is, although I'd give it a good try, I doubt I could convince a room full of 11 people to change their minds. One on one would be fine, I could work them out and create the right angle of attack in order to make them doubt their opinion enough to offer a not-guilty verdict, but doing this openly in front of each of the jurors, I'm sure my arguments would become inconsistant and there would be at least one logical behemoth in the group who would pick up on this and attack my reasoning.

 

[Daveman]

I loved that movie (old version) when I saw it...I must have been about 12 at the time. I've only watched it the once, and I didn't bother watching the remake, as I didn't see what could be added the original.

I would totally stand up for what I believed to be right, especially since the entire future of a man would be literally in my hands. Only problem is, although I'd give it a good try, I doubt I could convince a room full of 11 people to change their minds. One on one would be fine, I could work them out and create the right angle of attack in order to make them doubt their opinion enough to offer a not-guilty verdict, but doing this openly in front of each of the jurors, I'm sure my arguments would become inconsistant and there would be at least one logical behemoth in the group who would pick up on this and attack my reasoning.

Nothing was improved from the older version, but I liked seeing Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott in Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb's roles.

It would not be easy to do. Your reasoning could almost be irrefutable, and you still might not succeed. I think one would have to be strong enough to say, "Well, I gave it my best shot."---if they are in a situation where the stakes aren't QUITE so high.

This particular situation could definatley drive a person crazy.

 

[Dalien]

I would do everything in my power to convince the rest of the jury to try to erase that doubt of mine, all the while convincing them why I had the doubt. I'm very stubborn and passionate in my beliefs. An innocent person should not serve time for being innocent.