One thing I found really fascinating in this proposed scenario on film was how easily most people in the room fell into a mob-mentality state when placed in a room with the others. While the outcome of the story resulted from one man who was persistent enough to cast doubt on the judgement of 11 other jurors, the prevailing attitude for at least the first half of the film was: if everyone else thinks so too, he must be guilty! Until the older man decided to support the not-guilty verdict and lend an ear to the reasons someone was unconvinced about a guilty verdict, the arguments for why this sole voice in opposition to the majority should change his vote were practically nonexistent. It’s possible that they all individually reached the same conclusion (after all, there were only two choices to vote for), yet to me,  this film was an interesting example of scenarios in which this phenomenon manifests itself. Maybe it’s a flaw in the system, or judicial process, for a verdict to be decided in this way. I don’t think it’s realistic to expect that if someone on a jury has an opposing decision, to the prevailing judgment of the others, they will be patient and outspoken enough to try and persuade an entire room of people against what they believe. Is it necessary to isolate the 12 men who decide a person’s fate from outside influence? Could allowing outside influence from the external environment (political or otherwise) provide more context or even offer differing perspectives to what should be considered? Is mob-mentality the reason juries are able to reach a unanimous decision instead of declaring that they are hung on the verdict? I think these are important factors to consider, especially if capital punishment is a potential consequence.

Maybe I’ll get some answers to these questions, or gain a better understanding, when (or if) I experience serving on a jury, first hand.