There was a logical loophole and method bias in the persuasion process of juror number 8. Asking someone what they had for dinner the day before yesterday or last week, about 99% may get the answer “can’t remember”. However, if you look up the name of the movie the day before yesterday or last week, there may be 99% of the possible answers. Well, between forgetting a dinner and the name of the movie, obviously they cannot be equivalent, and it can prove that the boy forgetting movie’s name is normal. In persuading the last person, juror number 8 found out the “psychological motives” of the father and son’s bad relationship, and pointed out that “you are the last person”, providing both the reason for persuasion and the other party. Mental stress was exerted. Is this way of persuasion correct? Why use one person to convince another person? Is it to seek objective truth, but also just to prove his point of view?

Finally, judging from the order in which all the people were turned, the first thing that was reversed was the grassroots, followed by middle class, and finally the rich. This arrangement was meaningful and I think the writer intended it. In the one-person-one-vote rule, the differences in the class were eliminated, and people who rarely had the right to speak had a veto power. Everyone who chooses to “do something I can do” often chooses to exercise power. Does this power bring about the desire and temptation to show power and thus influence their own objective judgment? In fairness, the evidence chain of the case is not complete and it is taken for granted. However, the decision of the people is actually not related to the truth. This is why everyone is looking dazed out of the court. Because everyone understands that they may not have made the right choice, whether or not the teenager has killed anyone. However, everyone who had originally voted for guilt turned from a careless and reckless mindset to a solemn one. He thought hard about making a judgment of “truth,” quarreled intensely, and tangled his heart, at least he thought there was “reasonable doubt”.

Even in the United States, where the independence of the judiciary is concerned, the rules of law alone cannot guarantee that the truth must have appeared, but it gives people equal rights and opportunities for “reasonable suspicion.” I think that the main meaning of this movie is not to tell a story of justice, nor is it a hymn to the American judicial system, but to convey to everyone the spirit of “should take seriously their own power”. Everyone carries heavy weight with the decisions they made – and people need to remember that.