What would you do if you were one of the jurors in Twelve Angry Men to pursuade the other?
In 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 who stands the conventional view, was interested only in honest examination of the evidence. In a trial, the State is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and the real verdict of a jury must be either "Proven" or "Not Proven." A jury's real obligation is not to investigate and find the truth, but to evaluate the evidence properly placed before it and nothing more. From the evidences that were given in the case and not further investigation the juror #8 carried out for himself, I would have concluded that the boy was guilty. Although Juror #8 supplied us with possible occurrences and explanations for the boy's alibi, the presented evidences must not be ignored. As a judge and a judge only, I would emphasize the duty as a judge to evaluate and draw a conclusion solely based on the materials given to us. Anything is 'possible' and can account for the convicted murder. Merely suggesting possibilities is not strong enough to account for the actual occurrence or the murder and hold responsibility for a death of a man. Therefore I remain in my judgement from inspecting the evidences given that the boy was responsible for the murder.