The character, Henry Fonda, who was juror 8, made good use of persuasive speaking skills. Whatever he had to say, he did not have anything to gain from the decision, but through this, he found ease that which the others were willing to sentence a young man to death, disturbing. Fonda was just not convinced that the boy had indeed committed the crime, thus asked that all of the jurors would just review their own evidence with supportable backing. With the information Fonda received from his fellow jurors, he discrete it, showing his place , doubting the confused minds of his fellow jurors. Fonda was a wise man and with clear though he never directly stated that the defendant was innocent, but that there could be some doubt due to the certainty …show more content…
The aspect of Allness seemed to be of great importance to Juror #3. “ The tendency to judge the whole on the basis of the experience with part of the whole” ( DeVito, 2014, pg. 138) Juror #3 was the only character on the film who did not want to switch over to the other side, and thus portraying some personality traits, such as being stubborn and prideful. These characteristics concluded him in making untrue generalizations that conveyed that all teenagers and children behaves the same, nonetheless are the same. We could notice that he was dealing with some personal issues, leading to his decision of the boy being guilty, and because of this issue, he made an unfair prejudgement. His actions were very quick on judgement, desiring to get behind the heart of the matter and leave. People with these tendencies tend to“ …listen only for information with an obvious relevance to them.”[Lack of appropriate focus] (DeVito.2014.pg.99) Now Juror #8, as we all noticed was the complete opposite to Juror #3. His characteristics explained wanting to talk about things, discuss them and not jump to any rational conclusions or decision based on his