Typical layout of blog comments, representing the 120 comments to this article
Same 120 blog comments with color added (Same color = agreement.)
A representation of the same 120 blog comments in a DeepDebate conversation map
********************************************************
This is what the same 120 comments actually look like in a DeepDebate conversation map. This looks complex, but compared to the comment section of this blog, which has the same 120 comments, it only takes up 4% of the vertical space. Most importantly, related comments are displayed right next to each other, to make browsing more efficient.
********************************************************
Blog comments cannot handle large conversations. The above images make a side-by-side comparison possible to see what the same conversation from the comment section of this blog looks like in a DeepDebate conversation map.
There are several significant advantages to DeepDebate over the format of blog comments:
- Blog comments are trapped in the vertical dimension. They do not take advantage of the horizontal dimension, and therefore take up much more space on the screen (see the images above). In this particular example the DeepDebate conversation map displayed the same amount of information while only using 1/25th of the space.
- DeepDebate conversation maps preserve context; related ideas are right next to each other. With blog comments, often related ideas are pushed so far apart from each other, they won’t even show on the same screen.
- Blog comments are not color-coded to indicate agreement or disagreement. Color coding provides an executive-level overview to understand which comments are in agreement with each other even before you read them.
- Unlike DeepDebate, blog comments do not ask participants for a summary of their comment. Having summaries makes browsing the conversation much more efficient.
- Blog comments are free-form and do not challenge the user to categorize their response. Simply asking participants in a conversation whether they agree or disagree helps to limit out irrelevant responses. This can significantly increase the quality of conversation.
- The comments for this blog do not have a rating function so, unlike with DeepDebate, a reader has no way of differentiating between the best comments and all the others.
Case Study: 12 Angry Men
Image from Wikipedia
The conversation that we used in this case study comes from the iconic movie entitled 12 Angry Men (1957). This movie documents a jury’s deliberations in a murder trial. The movie provides a powerful example of what one person with conviction and logic can do to change the course of a life-and-death decision.
(Interestingly, the idea of a completely male jury wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows in 1957. It wasn’t until 1975 that the Supreme Court ruled that women should be allowed to serve on juries.)
The proposition– or topic sentence– in this debate is “The defendant in 12 Angry Men is guilty of murder.” There are eight primary arguments which support this proposition:
- The lady across the street saw the defendant stab the victim.
- The man living below the victim’s apartment heard the argument and identified the defendant running down the stairs.
- The defendant had a motive to stab the victim.
- The victim was stabbed in the chest with a knife that is traceable to the defendant.
- The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must be guilty.
- The defendant’s background indicates he is likely to be guilty.
- The evidence is sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt.
- The defendant had sufficiently competent legal representation to ensure a fair trial.
In total, there are 120 comments in this conversation and the entire conversation is displayed in the comment section of this blog. You’ll see a few of the comments multiple times because they are applicable in more than one place.
Once you’ve skimmed the comment section, you might want to look at the same 120 comments displayed in this DeepDebate conversation map to experience the difference firsthand.
Tags: pilot projects
The DeepDebate.Org Web Log | Better Decisions through Collective Intelligence. 
April 11, 2009 at 11:39 pm |
Reason #1: The lady across the street saw the defendant stab the victim.
April 11, 2009 at 11:44 pm |
Juror #4: ‘Let’s talk about this woman for a moment. She said she went to bed about eleven o’clock that night. Her bed was next to the window, and she could look out while lying down and see directly into the boy’s room across the street. She tossed an turned for over an hour unable to sleep. Finally she turned toward the window at about ten minutes after twelve, and as she looked out, she saw the killing through the windows of a passing “L”-train. She said the lights went out immediately after the killing, but that she got a good look at the boy in the act of stabbing his father. As far as I can see it, this is unshakable testimony. She said she saw the killing through the windows of a moving elevator train. There were six cars on the train, she saw the killing through the last two cars. She remembered the most insignificant details. I don’t see how you could argue with that.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:45 pm |
Juror #8: Do you wear glasses when you go to bed? I’m also guessing that she probably didn’t put her glasses on when she turned to look casually out of the window. And she herself testified that the killing took place just as she looked out. The lights went off a split-second later; she couldn’t have time to put them on then.
April 11, 2009 at 11:45 pm |
Juror #3: How do you know what she saw? How does he know all that? How do you know what kind of glasses she wore? Maybe they were sunglasses, maybe she was farsighted. What do you know about it?
April 11, 2009 at 11:45 pm |
Juror #8: ‘I only know the woman’s eyesight is in question now. Don’t you think the woman might have made a mistake?’
April 11, 2009 at 11:46 pm |
Juror #4: I have a reasonable doubt now.
April 11, 2009 at 11:44 pm |
Juror #10: ‘Listen, what about the woman across the street. If her testimony don’t prove it, nothing does. Here’s a woman who’s lying in bed. She can’t sleep. She’s dying with the heat. You know what I mean? Anyway she looks across the window and right across the street she sees the kid stick the knife into his father. The time is 12:10 on the nose. Everything fits. Look, she’s known the kid all his life. His window is right opposite hers across the “L”-tracks and she swore she saw him do it.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:46 pm |
Juror #8: ‘Through the windows of a passing “L”-train.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:47 pm |
Juror #8: ‘I’d like to ask you something. You don’t believe the boy’s story. How come you believe the woman’s? She’s one of them too, isn’t she?’
April 11, 2009 at 11:40 pm |
Reason #2: The man living below the victim’s apartment heard the argument and identified the defendant running down the stairs.
April 11, 2009 at 11:47 pm |
Juror #3: ‘OK, here’s what I think, and I have no personal feelings about this; I just want to talk about facts. Number one: the old man lived downstairs under the room where the killing took place. At ten minutes after twelve on the night of the killing he heard loud noises. He said it sounded like a fight. And he heard the kid yell out “I’m gonna kill you.” A second later, he heard a body hit the floor. Ran to the door, opened it up. Saw the kid running down the stairs and out of the house. He called the police. They came and found the old man with a knife in his chest. The coroner fixed the time of death around midnight. Now these are facts. You can’t refute facts. They kid is guilty. I’m just as sentimental as the next fellow. I know he’s only eighteen, but he’s still got to pay for what he did.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:47 pm |
Juror #8: ‘We’re not. Not unless somebody else wants to. I’d like to find out if an old man who drags one foot when he walks, because he had a stroke last year could get to his bedroom to his front door in fifteen seconds. Fifteen seconds after the body hit the floor. Now let’s see it’s twelve feet from the bed to the door; the hall is forty-three feet. He would have had to walk twelve feet, open the bedroom door, walk forty three feet down and open the front door all in fifteen seconds. You think he could have done it?’
April 11, 2009 at 11:47 pm |
Juror #10: ‘Sure he could have done it.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:48 pm |
Juror #11: ‘He could walk only very slowly. They had to help him into the witness chair.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:49 pm |
Juror #3: ‘You make it seem like a long walk.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:49 pm |
Juror #9: ‘For an old man it is a long walk.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:48 pm |
“[Juror #8 simulates the old man’s actions.]
Juror #8: ‘Alright, now here’s the apartment where the killing took place. The old man’s apartment was directly beneath and exactly the same. Here are the “L”-tracks, the bedroom, living room, kitchen, bathroom, here’s the hall, and the stairs. Now the old man was in this bedroom right here. He said he crossed to the door and walked down the hall, opened the front door just in time to see the boy running down the stairs. Am I right so far? The hallway was forty-three feet; I’ll pace from that wall and back again. You want me to walk faster than that, I will. [walking] Lock, door, stop. What’s the time?
Juror #2: Exactly forty-one seconds.”
April 11, 2009 at 11:50 pm |
Juror #8: The old man heard the fight between the old man and the boy a few hours earlier. Then when he’s lying in his bed, he heard a body hit the floor in the boy’s apartment, heard the woman scream from across the street, got to his door as fast as he could, heard somebody racing down the stairs, and assumed it was the boy.
April 11, 2009 at 11:50 pm |
Juror #3: ‘Why should he lie? What’s he got to gain?’
April 11, 2009 at 11:51 pm |
Juror #9: ‘Attention maybe. It was just that I looked at him for a very long time. The seam in his jacket was split under the shoulder. Oh, did you notice that? I mean to come to court like that. He was a very old man in a torn jacket. He walked very slowly to the stand. He was dragging his left leg and trying to hide it because he was ashamed. I think I know this man better than anyone here. This is a quiet, silent, insignificant old man who has been nothing all his life, who has never had recognition or his name in the newspapers. Nobody knows him. Nobody quotes him. Nobody seeks his advice after seventy five years. Gentlemen, that’s a very sad thing to mean nothing. A man like this needs to be quoted, to be listened to. To be quoted just once is very important to him. It would be so hard for him to rescind into the background.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:51 pm |
Juror #7: ‘Oh, wait a minute. What are you trying to do, tell us he lied just so he could be important once?’
April 11, 2009 at 11:51 pm |
Juror #9: ‘No, he wouldn’t really lie, but perhaps he made himself believe he heard those words and recognized the boy’s face.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:51 pm |
Juror #8: ‘Let me ask you this: do you really think the boy shouted out a thing like that so the whole neighborhood could hear him? He’s much too bright for that.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:52 pm |
Juror #10: Bright? He’s a common, ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English.
April 11, 2009 at 11:53 pm |
Juror #11: He doesn’t even speak good English.
April 11, 2009 at 11:53 pm |
Juror #8: ‘It’s always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:54 pm |
Juror #5: ‘You know something, I don’t think he could have heard it.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:54 pm |
Juror #3: ‘Why should he lie? What’s he got to gain?’
April 11, 2009 at 11:55 pm |
Juror #9: ‘Attention maybe. It was just that I looked at him for a very long time. The seam in his jacket was split under the shoulder. Oh, did you notice that? I mean to come to court like that. He was a very old man in a torn jacket. He walked very slowly to the stand. He was dragging his left leg and trying to hide it because he was ashamed. I think I know this man better than anyone here. This is a quiet, silent, insignificant old man who has been nothing all his life, who has never had recognition or his name in the newspapers. Nobody knows him. Nobody quotes him. Nobody seeks his advice after seventy five years. Gentlemen, that’s a very sad thing to mean nothing. A man like this needs to be quoted, to be listened to. To be quoted just once is very important to him. It would be so hard for him to rescind into the background.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:55 pm |
Juror #7: ‘Oh, wait a minute. What are you trying to do, tell us he lied just so he could be important once?’
April 11, 2009 at 11:55 pm |
Juror #9: ‘No, he wouldn’t really lie, but perhaps he made himself believe he heard those words and recognized the boy’s face.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:56 pm |
Juror #3: ‘You can throw out all the other evidence. The woman saw him do it. What else do you want?’
April 11, 2009 at 11:56 pm |
Juror #6: ‘Maybe he didn’t hear it. I mean, with all that “L” noise.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:56 pm |
Juror #8: ‘Supposing he really did hear it. This phrase– how many times have all of us used it? Probably thousands. “I could kill you for that darling.” “Junior, you do that once more and I’m going to kill you.” “Get in there Rocky and kill ’em.” We say that every day; that doesn’t mean we’re really gonna kill him.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:57 pm |
Juror #3: ‘Wait a minute. What are you trying to give us here? The phrase was, “I’m gonna kill you.” The kid yelled it at the top of his lungs. Don’t tell me he didn’t mean it. Anybody says a thing like that the way he said it, they mean it.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:57 pm |
Juror #2: ‘Well gee, now I don’t know. I remember I was arguing with the guy I work next to at the bank a couple of weeks ago. He called me an idiot so I yelled at him.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:57 pm |
[Juror #3 eventually shouts the phrase “I’m gonna kill you” when he is angry with Juror #8. This negates his previous statement that anytime someone says that phrase, they are going to act on it.]
April 11, 2009 at 11:40 pm |
Reason #3: The defendant had a motive to stab the victim.
April 11, 2009 at 11:57 pm |
Juror #6: ‘Oh, well I started to be convinced very early in the case. You see, I was looking for a motive. That’s very important, because if you don’t have a motive, where’s your case, right? Anyway, that testimony from the people across the hall from the kid’s apartment– that was very powerful. Didn’t they say something about a fight between the old man and his son about 7 o’clock that night. I mean I could be wrong.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:58 pm |
Juror #8: ‘It was eight o’clock. That’s right; they heard an argument. They couldn’t hear what it was about. Then they heard the father hit the boy twice. Finally they saw the boy run angry out of the house, what does that prove?’
April 11, 2009 at 11:58 pm |
Juror #6: ‘It don’t exactly prove anything. It’s just part of the picture.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:58 pm |
Juror #8: ‘You said it provided a motive. And the prosecuting attorney said the same thing. I don’t think that was a very strong motive. This boy’s been hit so many times in his life that violence is practically a normal state of affairs for him. I can’t see two slaps in the fact provoking him into committing murder.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:58 pm |
Juror #4: ‘It may have been two too many. Everyone has a breaking point.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:59 pm |
Juror #8: ‘Supposing he really did hear it. This phrase– how many times have all of us used it? Probably thousands. “I could kill you for that darling.” “Junior, you do that once more and I’m going to kill you.” “Get in there Rocky and kill ’em.” We say that every day; that doesn’t mean we’re really gonna kill him.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:59 pm |
Juror #3: ‘Wait a minute. What are you trying to give us here? The phrase was, “I’m gonna kill you.” The kid yelled it at the top of his lungs. Don’t tell me he didn’t mean it. Anybody says a thing like that the way he said it, they mean it.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:59 pm |
Juror #2: ‘Well gee, now I don’t know. I remember I was arguing with the guy I work next to at the bank a couple of weeks ago. He called me an idiot so I yelled at him.’
April 12, 2009 at 12:00 am |
[Juror #3 eventually shouts the phrase “I’m gonna kill you” when he is angry with Juror #8. This negates his previous statement that anytime someone says that phrase, they are going to act on it.]
April 11, 2009 at 11:40 pm |
Reason #4: The victim was stabbed in the chest with a knife that is traceable to the defendant.
April 12, 2009 at 10:17 am |
Juror #4: Suppose we take the facts one at a time. One: the boy admitted going out of the house at 8 o’clock on the night of the murder after being slapped several times by his father. Two: he went directly to a neighborhood junk shop where he bought one of those switchblade knives. This wasn’t what you’d call an ordinary knife. It had a very unusual carved handle and blade. The storekeeper who sold it to him said it was the only one of its kind he has ever had in stock. Three: He met several friends of his in front of a tavern about 8:45. Am I right so far? He talked with his friends for about an hour, leaving them about 9:45. During this time, they saw the switch knife. Four: they identified the death weapon in court as that very same knife.
April 12, 2009 at 10:18 am |
Juror #6: No, he didn’t say slapped, he said “punched.” There is a difference between a slap and a punch.
April 12, 2009 at 10:19 am |
Juror #2: ‘There’s something I’d like to say. I mean it’s been bothering me a little, and as long as we’re stuck. Well, there was this whole business about the stab wound and how it was made, the downward angle of it, you know? Well, I know they did, but I don’t go along with it. Now the boy was five feet seven inches tall, his father was six-two. That’s a difference of seven inches. It’s a very awkward thing to stab down into the chest of someone who’s more than half a foot taller than you are.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:19 am |
Juror #3: ‘Now this is the way I’d stab a man who was taller than I was. Look at the angle. Down and in. This is the way it was done. Now tell me I’m wrong.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:20 am |
Juror #12: ‘Down and in. I guess there’s no argument.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:20 am |
Juror #5: ‘Anybody here ever seen a knife fight? Well I have. You know, on my back stoop. In the lot across the street. Backyard. Switchblades came with the neighborhood where I lived. It’s funny I never thought of it before. I guess you try to forget those things. Well, you never use it like this. See you lose too much time switching hands. Here’s how: underhanded. Anyone who has ever used a switch knife, wouldn’t handle it any other way. You’d say the boy was pretty handy with a knife. You think he could have made the kind of wound that killed his father? Not with all the experience he’s had all his life handling these things. I feel he would have gone for him underhanded.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:20 am |
Juror #4: ‘I don’t think we can determine what wound the boy might or might not have made by the way he knew how to handle a knife.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:21 am |
Juror #5: ‘I’m sure. That’s why they’re made to open like that.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:21 am |
Juror #3: You can throw out all the other evidence. The woman saw him do it. What else do you want?
April 12, 2009 at 10:22 am |
Juror #4: ‘Take a look at this knife. It’s a very unusual knife. I’ve never seen one like it. Neither had the storekeeper who sold it to the boy. Aren’t you asking us to accept a pretty incredible coincidence?’
April 12, 2009 at 10:22 am |
Juror #8: [He pulls out the same kind of knife from his pocket, proving it isn’t unique.] I went out walking for a couple of hours last night. I walked through the boy’s neighborhood. I bought that at a little pawn shop just two blocks from the boy’s house. It cost six dollars.
April 12, 2009 at 10:23 am |
Juror #6: ‘That’s the same knife.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:23 am |
Juror #2: You know it’s interesting to find a knife exactly like the one the boy bought.
April 12, 2009 at 10:24 am |
Juror #8: ‘I’m just saying a coincidence is possible.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:24 am |
Juror #3: ‘And I’m saying it’s not possible.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:25 am |
Juror #8: [He pulls out the same kind of knife from his pocket, proving it isn’t unique.] I went out walking for a couple of hours last night. I walked through the boy’s neighborhood. I bought that at a little pawn shop just two blocks from the boy’s house. It cost six dollars.
April 12, 2009 at 10:26 am |
Juror #12: ‘You mean you’re asking us to believe that somebody else did the stabbing with exactly the same kind of knife?’
April 12, 2009 at 10:27 am |
Juror #8: ‘It’s possible.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:40 pm |
Reason #5: The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must be guilty.
April 12, 2009 at 10:27 am |
Juror #4: ‘Now what happened to the switch knife? He claims it fell through a hole in his pocket on the way to the movies sometime between 11:30 and 3:10 and that he never saw it again. Now there is a tale, gentlemen. I think it’s quite clear that the boy never went to the movies that night. No one at the house saw him go out at 11:30. No one at the theater identified him. He couldn’t even remember the names of the pictures he saw. It’s obvious to me anyway that the boy’s entire story was flimsy. He claimed he was at the movies at the time of the killing, yet one hour later he couldn’t remember the names of the films he saw or who played in them. And no one saw him going in or out of the theater.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:28 am |
Juror #8: ‘Putting yourself in the boy’s place, do you think you could remember details after an upsetting experience such as being slapped in the face by your father. According to the police testimony in court, the boy was questioned by the detectives in the kitchen of his apartment while the body of his father was lying in the bedroom. You think you could remember details under those circumstances? Under great emotional stress?’
April 12, 2009 at 10:28 am |
Juror #4: I do. Under great emotional stress.
April 12, 2009 at 10:29 am |
[After a series of questions, Juror #4 admits he couldn’t remember the name of the movie he saw a few days ago, and that he wasn’t under emotional stress. This lends credibility to the suspect’s story that he couldn’t remember the names of the movies he just saw either.]
April 12, 2009 at 10:29 am |
Juror #4: ‘What actually happened is this. The boy stayed home, had another fight with his father, stabbed him to death, and left the house at ten minutes after twelve. He even remembered to wipe the knife clean of fingerprints. Now are you trying to tell me that this knife really fell through a hole in the boy’s pocket, someone picked it up off the street, went to the boy’s house, and stabbed his father with it just to test its sharpness?’
April 12, 2009 at 10:29 am |
Juror #8: ‘No, I’m just saying it’s possible the boy lost his knife and that somebody else stabbed his father with a similar knife. It’s just possible.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:30 am |
Juror #4: ‘Take a look at this knife. It’s a very unusual knife. I’ve never seen one like it. Neither had the storekeeper who sold it to the boy. Aren’t you asking us to accept a pretty incredible coincidence?’
April 12, 2009 at 10:30 am |
Juror #8: ‘I’m just saying a coincidence is possible.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:30 am |
Juror #3: ‘And I’m saying it’s not possible.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:30 am |
Juror #8: [He pulls out the same kind of knife from his pocket, proving it isn’t unique.] I went out walking for a couple of hours last night. I walked through the boy’s neighborhood. I bought that at a little pawn shop just two blocks from the boy’s house. It cost six dollars.
April 12, 2009 at 10:31 am |
Juror #12: ‘You mean you’re asking us to believe that somebody else did the stabbing with exactly the same kind of knife?’
April 12, 2009 at 10:31 am |
Juror #8: ‘It’s possible.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:31 am |
Juror #8: [He pulls out the same kind of knife from his pocket, proving it isn’t unique.] I went out walking for a couple of hours last night. I walked through the boy’s neighborhood. I bought that at a little pawn shop just two blocks from the boy’s house. It cost six dollars.
April 12, 2009 at 10:31 am |
Juror #6: ‘That’s the same knife.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:32 am |
Juror #2: ‘You know it’s interesting to find a knife exactly like the one the boy bought.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:32 am |
Juror #11: ‘Pardon me. I have made some notes here, and I would like to please say something. I have been listening very carefully and it seems to me that this man has some very good points to make. From what was presented at the trial, the boy looks guilty on the surface. But maybe if we go deeper? There’s a question I would like to ask. Let us assume that the boy really did commit the murder. Now this happened at ten minutes after twelve. How was he caught by the police? He came back home at 3 o’clock or so and he was captured by two detectives in the hallway of his house. Now my question is if he really had killed his father, why would he come back home three hours later? Wouldn’t he be afraid of being caught?’
April 12, 2009 at 10:32 am |
Juror #12: ‘Well, this is just off the top of my head, but if I were the boy and I’d done the stabbing and everything, I’d take a chance and go back for the knife. I bet he figured no one had seen him running out and that the body wouldn’t be discovered until the next day. After all, it was the middle of the night. I’ll bet he figured that nobody would even find the body until the next day.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:32 am |
Juror #11: ‘Pardon, this is my whole point. The woman across the street testified that the moment after she saw the killing, that is the moment after the train went by she screamed and then went to telephone the police. Now the boy certainly must have heard the scream. He knew that somebody saw something. I just don’t think that he would have gone back.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:32 am |
Juror #4: ‘Two things. One, in his state of panic he might not have heard the scream. Perhaps it wasn’t very loud. Two, if he did hear it, he may not have connected it with his own act. Remember he lived in a neighborhood where screams were fairly commonplace.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:32 am |
Juror #8: ‘Maybe. Maybe the boy did kill his father, didn’t hear the scream, did run out in a panic, did calm down three hours later did come back to get the knife, risking being caught by the police. Maybe all those things happened, but maybe they didn’t. I think there was enough doubt that we could wonder if he was there at all the time the killing took place.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:33 am |
Juror #12: ‘He came back to get his knife. It’s not nice to go around leaving knives in peoples’ chests.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:33 am |
Juror #4: ‘I don’t see anything funny about it. They boy knew the knife could be identified as the one he had just bought. He had to get it before the police did.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:34 am |
Juror #11: ‘But if he knew the knife could be identified, why did he leave it there in the first place?’
April 12, 2009 at 10:34 am |
Juror #4: ‘Well, I think we can assume the boy ran out in a state of panic, after having just killed his father. When he finally calmed down, he realized he left his knife there.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:35 am |
Juror #11: ‘Ah, this then depends on your definition of panic. He would have had to have been calm enough to see to it that there were no fingerprints left on the knife. Now where did this panic start and where did it end?’
April 12, 2009 at 10:36 am |
Juror #3: You can throw out all the other evidence. The woman saw him do it. What else do you want?
April 12, 2009 at 10:37 am |
Juror #7: ‘Yeah, especially relatives.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:40 pm |
Reason #6: The defendant’s background indicates he is likely to be guilty.
April 12, 2009 at 10:37 am |
Juror #10: ‘I don’t understand you people. I mean all these picky little points you keep bringing up. They don’t mean nothing. You saw this kid just like I did. You’re not going to tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie. It’s born in them. I mean, what the heck, I don’t have to tell you. They don’t know what the truth is. And let me tell you. They don’t need any real big reason to kill someone either. No sir. They get drunk. Oh, they’re real big drinkers all of them. You know that. And bang, someone’s lying in the gutter. Nobody’s blaming them for it. That’s the way they are– by nature. You know what I mean? Violent. Where are you going? Human life don’t mean as much to them as it does to us. Look, they’re lushing it up and fighting all the time and if somebody gets killed, then somebody gets killed; they don’t care. Sure there are some good things about ’em too. Look, I’m the first one to say that. I’ve known a couple that were ok, but that’s the exception. You know what I mean? Most of ’em have no feelings. They can do anything. What’s going on here? I’m trying to tell ya’. You’re making a big mistake, you people. This kid is a liar; I know it; I know all about them. Listen to me. They’re no good. There’s not a single one of ’em who’s any good. What’s happening in here? I’m speaking my piece and you–. Listen to me. This kid on trial– his type– well don’t you know about them? There’s a danger here. These people are dangerous. They’re wild. Listen to me. Listen to me.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:37 am |
Juror #8: ‘It’s always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:41 am |
Juror #3: ‘You can throw out all the other evidence. The woman saw him do it. What else do you want?’
April 12, 2009 at 10:41 am |
Juror #7: This kid is five for all. Well, look at his record. When he was ten, he was in children’s court; he through a rock at a teacher. When he was fifteen, he was in reform school; he stole a car. He’s been arrested for mugging. He was picked up twice for knife fighting. They say he’s real handy with a knife. Oh, this is a very fine boy.
April 12, 2009 at 10:42 am |
Juror #4: ‘I think we’re missing the point here. This boy– let’s say he’s the product of a broken home and a filthy neighborhood. We can’t help that. We’re here to decide whether he’s innocent or guilty, not to go into the reasons he grew up the way he did. He was born in a slum. Slums are breeding grounds for criminals; I know it and so do you. It’s no secret. Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:43 am |
Juror #10: ‘Brother, you can say that again. The kids who crawl out of these places are real trash. I don’t want any part of them. I tell you.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:43 am |
Juror #5: ‘Listen. Listen. I’ve lived in a slum all my life. I played in backyards that were filled with garbage. Maybe you can still smell it on me.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:44 am |
Juror #5: ‘Listen. Listen. I’ve lived in a slum all my life. I played in backyards that were filled with garbage. Maybe you can still smell it on me.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:41 pm |
Reason #7: The evidence is sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt.
April 12, 2009 at 10:47 am |
Juror #3: Everything. Every single thing that took place in that courtroom– but I mean everything– says he’s guilty. What do you think, I’m in idiot or something? Why don’t you take that stuff about the old man. The old man who lived there and heard everything. Or this business about the knife, what because he found another one exactly like it? The old man saw him, right there on the stairs. What’s the difference how many seconds it was? Every single thing. The knife falling through a hole in his pocket. You can’t prove he didn’t get to the door. Sure you can take all the time hobbling about the room, but you can’t prove it. Now what about this business with the “L”-train? And the movies– there’s a phony deal if I ever heard one. I bet you five thousand dollars I’d remember the movies I saw. I’m telling you, everything that’s gone on has been twisted and turned. This business with the glasses. How do you know she didn’t have them on? This woman testified in open court. And what about hearing the kid yell, huh? I’m telling ya, I’ve got all the facts here. Here. Well that’s it, that’s the whole case.
April 12, 2009 at 10:47 am |
Juror #8: ‘I don’t really know what the truth is. I don’t suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent. But we’re just gambling on probabilities; we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free. I don’t know. Nobody really can. But we have a reasonable doubt. That’s something that’s very valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man “guilty” unless it’s sure. We nine can’t understand how you three are still so sure. Maybe you can tell us.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:47 am |
Juror #3: What reasonable doubt? That’s nothing but words. Here look at this. The kid you just decided isn’t guilty was seen ramming this [knife] into his father. Now what about this, Mr. Reasonable Doubt?
April 12, 2009 at 10:47 am |
Juror #9: That’s not the knife, don’t you remember? [This statement indicates that the knife used in the killing is not unique, and this introduces some reasonable doubt.]
April 12, 2009 at 10:47 am |
Juror #12: ‘You can say what you like; I don’t see how anybody can think he’s not guilty.’
April 11, 2009 at 11:41 pm |
Reason #8: The defendant had sufficiently competent legal representation to ensure a fair trial.
April 12, 2009 at 10:48 am |
Juror #8: ‘Alright, I don’t have anything brilliant. I only know as much as you do. According to testimony, the boy looks guilty. Maybe he is. I sat there in court for six days listening while the evidence built up. Everybody sounded so positive. I began to get a peculiar feeling about this trial. I mean nothing is that positive. There were a lot of questions I would have liked to ask. Maybe they wouldn’t have meant anything, but I don’t know. I began to get the feeling that the defense counsel wasn’t conducting a thorough cross examination. He let too many things go by. Little things that…’
April 12, 2009 at 10:48 am |
Juror #10: ‘What little things. Listen, when these fellows don’t ask questions, it’s because they know the answers already and they figured they’d be hurt.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:48 am |
Juror #8: ‘Maybe. And it’s also possible for a lawyer to be just plain stupid. Isn’t it? I mean it’s possible.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:48 am |
Juror #7: ‘You sound like you’ve met my brother in law.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:48 am |
Juror #8: ‘They’re only people. People make mistakes. Could they be wrong?’
April 12, 2009 at 10:48 am |
Juror #8: ‘I kept putting myself in the kid’s place. I would have asked for another lawyer I think. I mean if I was on trial for my life, I’d want my lawyer to tear the prosecution witnesses to shreds or at least try to. Look there was one alleged eyewitness to this killing. Someone else claims he heard the killing, heard the boy run out afterwards. There was a lot of circumstantial evidence. But actually those two witnesses were the entire case for the prosecution. Supposing they’re wrong.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:48 am |
Juror #12: ‘What are you trying to say? Those people sat on the stand under oath.’
April 12, 2009 at 10:48 am |
Juror #8: ‘They’re only people. People make mistakes. Could they be wrong?’
April 12, 2009 at 10:49 am |
Juror #10: Oh, come on, nobody can know a thing like that. This isn’t an exact science.
April 12, 2009 at 10:50 am |
Juror #10: ‘He [the lawyer] is a 15th assistant to something. What does he know about it?’