Juror #3 came into this trial with a moral dilemma long before hearing the facts of the case. Given his past experiences, …show more content…
As Juror #8 tries to show Juror #3 why it couldn’t be true Juror #3 makes a slip up. In a small blind fit of rage he yells, “How can you believe that old man when he says 15 seconds, a man at that age you can’t believe anything he says!” with that Juror #3 has just sealed his defeat in this argument (12 Angry Men).
Stubbornly all that is left for him to argue is his emotional attachment to the choice of guilty or not guilty. When the real answer is cloudy and both sides of an argument have facts that cannot be disputed many people will go with how they feel. In most cases those decisions don’t get a young boy killed, Juror #3 has failed to approach this case with an open mind. The facts he voiced had been disproved leaving him with caving in, but he makes the rash decision to stay with his vote of guilty possibly as some kind of a moral victory over today’s youth. Maybe it is more along the lines of his son. He tells a sob story to the rest of the jury. He watched his son run away from a fight and he was so embarrassed that he promised his son that he would make a man out of him (12 Angry Men). Well, one day this man that he had made gave him a punch that put him down and he hasn’t seen his son since (12 Angry Men). His own experience has been clouding his vision of the truth the whole time. When a human life is on the line putting your emotions in the mix will cloud anyone’s judgments good intentions or