Response Question #1:

Juror 8 acted correctly because he gave the 19 year old boy a chance instead of just sending him off to his death bed. He voted not guilty so that the evidence could be looked at to see if the story put together logically. Maybe the boy was guilty and maybe he wasn't but at least he got a chance instead of just dying without discussion.

I believe that Juror 8 did the right thing by letting the kid have a chance and not just letting him go to the electric chair just because it was hot and he wanted to go home. Juror 8 voted not guilty because he wanted to talk about the case and think instead of just letting it go and forgetting about it. I think that one reason that 8 wanted to discuss the case was because he didn't want to have the death of the boy on his conscience if he was later found innocent.

I agree with Sienna. Eight was smart and brave to vote not guilty in the beginning. Juror eight also persuaded the other Jurors cleverly but without cheating. He did a good job finding the reasonable doubt. Almost as good as a detective! It would be a shame to find the boy guilty though.
I do think that the boy was guilty, there for sure was reasonable doubt but I still think the boy was guilty.

I think that the boy was not guilty because juror eight proved that there was no truth in what the old man down the stairs or the woman across the street said. also he proved that the knife was not that hard to find being that he got one exactly like it for $2. He could have done the murder and by some chance the two people said that the boy did it. but that is not very likely.

Re: Richard, Sienna, Kara
I also think that Juror 8 acted wisely. He made everybody think about their vote before deciding whether he should die or not. They just wanted to go home and escape the heat. I view it kind of like editing a paper, it's always best to double check before you turn it in. Even though Juror 8 did not say if he thought the boy was innocent or guilty, he did cleverly persuade the other Jurors into thinking there was a reasonable doubt. He also made the other Jurors carefully examine the evidence, such as the switch knife and diagram of the apartment.
Re: Kara
Even though there is a reasonable doubt, I too think that the boy was guilty.

I believe that Juror 8 acted correctly and in a very wise manner. I agree with Richard about him not giving up just because he had many strong points against him. I also agree with Kara because he did do it wisely and persuaded the other jurors to continue on.
I think that the boy is not guilty because there are so many facts pointing to the fact that he did not do it. I agree with Ian at this point in the question because ANYONE could have easily committed the murder.

Juror 8 did the correct thing by debating and talking over the evidence. He proved that with further debate and discussion, a more just outcome can be found. Juror 8 did not accuse the boy of being guilty or innocent, he just wanted to really make sure the trial was fair. By cleverly proving the prejudiced jurors wrong, he changed the outcome of the boy's life. Even with 8's debating, the boys alibi was weak that i believe he was guilty.

I think Juror 8 was right in persuading the rest of the Jurors to agree with him. He wanted a fair trial, and it was the right thing to do. He found all the right facts to get Juror 8 (and everyone else) not to beleive he is guilty like the lady with the glasses, and how the boy was an experienced knife fighter, and wouldn't stab downward. I don't think the boy is guilty.

I say it was smart for Juror 8 to defend the boy. The boy, in my opinion, is innocent. Since Juror 8 did this, he was able to bring up the point that the child, an experienced knife fighter and a smart kid, would not strike downward (dumb), then clean (smart), the go back to dumb. Plus, Juror 8 brought up the point that the woman who saw the murder had a hard time seeing, in fact, she needed high-powered glasses to see, and she didn't wear glasses to bed. Therefore she would not be able to look out the window casually and see the murder, just a blur that she connected to the murder later when she heard about the dead father and suspected son. This got rid of the major, hard-core evidence and the rest were pretty much knocked off easily. After this little speech, I rest my case, the child is not guilty.

I think juror 8 was smart because he wanted to look at the facts more, and was able to find resonable doubt. For example the boy was experienced knife fighter and would have stabbed up instead of down. Also the old man took around forty seconds not 15 seconds and the lights in the stairs were very dim so it would have been hard to see. The most important fact was the lady across the el tracks wore glasses and probably saw blurs instead. Also the knife that was found in the father wasn't very rare because juror 8 bought the same exact knife for two dollars in the neighborhood.

Re: Maria
I think that what Maria said was true. The boy goes from smart, to dumb, then to smart again.
I think Juror 8 was correct in what he did. Every person deserves a fair trial, no matter how bad the crime, or how guilty the person seems. There was a reasonable doubt, and it was good that Juror 8 changed everyone's mind. The man downstairs was really off on his time. That is one reason to think that he did not see the boy running down the stairs. He also could not have heard the boy yell, "I'm going to kill you!" while the el train was going by. The woman across the tracks could not have seen the boy murder his father because she had glasses and you do not sleep with your glasses on at night. Another point that they proved wrong was the knife. Juror 8 found the same exact knife down the street for two dollars and that proves that the knife is not unusual like the people in court said it was. There are many reasonable doubts that were pointed out by Juror 8. I have mixed feelings about whether the boy is guilty or not guilty. I think that you would have to know more about the case and have more clues to figure out if the boy is guilty or not.

Re: Maria
I agree woth Maria. Juror 8 did the right thing and the boy is innocent. Everybody deserves a good discusion. If juror 8 would have not said not guilty that boy would be dead. I would do exactly what 8 did. Who would want a boy to die with out discussing it. I could not live with that. Juror 8 was very confident in what he was saying. He was backed up by many facts. The old man was way of on his time. He also could have heard the boy say im going to kill you another time becasue the boy and the fahter fight a lot. Also he might have just done it for attention. Another fact is the lady with the glasses said she could see through the window trough the el train and through the next window and she is almost blind. She probobly told herself to see it and then she believed herself just like the old man hearing the boy say im going to kill you. Juror 8 was very smart in what he did. He is a good man. As for the rest of them they were waiting to get out of the heat and they would let somebody die for themselves. Also how could the boy go back and forth from being dumb then smart then dumb again. Maybe he was in a group and maybe the old women did see him stab his father but also somebody else ran down the stairs and said im going to kill you. I dont know. If i could make a sequel of the book i would tell the readers who the killler was but it would have to be somebody un expected maybe Juror 3. I dont know. All in All juror 8 did the right thing and was very wide and the bor is not guilty

Re:Margaret/Maria and Kate
I also agree with you that the boy is smart then dumb then smart then dumb, etc. He stabs the father wrong to make it look like a less experienced knife fighter killed him, but then he is dumb and kills him when an el train was passing by and people could see the murder, like the woman in the apartment across from his. Then he is smart again so he wipes the fingerprints of the knife, but, again he is dumb and has a horrible coverup. He said that he was at the movies, but the ticket people did not recognize him, he lost is ticket stub, and he didn't remember what movie he saw. Also, the story about the knife falling through the hole in his pocket is shaky.
Kate, I also agree that everybody deserves a good discussion. The law says the every person is entitled to a fair trial, and Juror 8 was just trying to make that happen, and guess what happened! After discussing the boy's innocence/guilt, they uncovered reasonable doubt.

Re: Margaret
I agree with you about Juror 8 being correct. He voted against the majority because he knew that the boy deserved a fair discussion. Juror 8 was able to prove that some of the witnesses' testimonies where wrong. The old man that lived down stairs had sworn on oath that he heard the killing and then was able to reach the door and see the boy running down the stairs in 15 seconds. Juror 8 reenacted this and the jury agreed that it would have to have taken at least 40 seconds for the old man to reach the door. Across the street lived a woman that claimed she saw through the el train windows and watched the boy stab his father. This is unlikely because the woman wore thick glasses and probably did not wear them while sleeping. Juror 8 was correct, he was able to put a reasonable doubt in my mind and the other jurors.

I think Juror 8 definitely was right in persuading the other jurors. He didn't just want to leave because it was late and he wanted to go home, he wanted to present all of the facts. He made the other jurors look more closely into all of the evidence, until he was clearly innocent. He thought more thoroughly and realised that the old woman couldn't have possibly seen the boy run in that short of time, that the man below couldn't have heard the body drop because of the el train, and that the old man probably couldn't have gone to see the boy in time. He stuck through to make sure that justice was brought, and that was the right thing to do. I think he was one of the only jurors that truly was searching for justice for the boy.

I agree with all of the above that Juror 8 did the right thing by making everyone think over it again and change they're decision. He didn't leave because he new all of the evidence was not true and was proved wrong. Especially with the woman who claimed she saw the murder through a series of windows when she has bad vision. I agree that he was the only juror that was seeking the right thing to happen in this case.

I think Juror 8 acted correctly in persuading the other jurors to change their votes because he only wanted a fair trial for the kid. He only thought that their was a reasonable doubt that the kid had murdered his father. When they looked into it more they found out that many things didn't seem like they were true. An example, was the man who heard the kid scream "I'm going to kill you" and fifteen seconds later he opened his door just to see the kid running down the stairs. First of all, he's an old man which would have took him a lot longer to complete that but he swore that is was only fifteen seconds. The Jurors tested it themselves and sure enough their time wasn't very close to fifteen seconds. In fact, their time was at least forty seconds. Re:Arash The whole case for Juror 3 was the woman who said she saw the kid kill his dad through her window, through the el train, and through the window on the other side. This was proved that this probably wouldn't have happened because the woman said she saw it in a split of a second. Did she really have time to put on her glasses and then see it in the knick of time. She wouldn't do that becasue she was just casually looking out her window in the middle of the night. Her visoion would have been blurred and she probably thougt that she saw it happen but it could have been anybody. The votes greatly swayed from 11 guilty, 1 not guilty(Juror 8) in the beginning to 12 not guilty, 0 guilty. This was all becasue Juror 8 wanted a fair trial for the kid, not saying his guilty or not guilty. Many Jurors just wanted to get the trail over with and go home, but when Juror 8 said he was not guilty, they looked into it more and then they all changed their votes to not guilty which may have left the kid innocent. Although, we will never know if he's not guilty or guilty.

I think that juror 8 acted correctly because if he had said guilty he would have been carted off to jail without anyone discussing his fate. I also think that if juror 8 did not say the whole story going fact through fact timing things along the way the boy would have been condemned.

Juror 8 acted correctly because he gave the accused boy a fair trial. There was reasonable doubt. The first fact was the boy was an experienced knife fighter and the wound on the father was stabbed downward. An experienced knife fighter would have stabbed upward with a switch knife, but the most important fact is the lady that saw the killing across the street. She said that she couldn't fall asleep and she stood up for a second and saw the stabbing across the street. She did not sleep with her glasses on, so she could have been seeing blurs. The jurors voted not guilty because there was reasonable doubt.