The jurors had a huge decision to make, whether or not a boy would live

or die based upon the findings presented by the prosecution. The jurors would
have to live with their decision for the rest of their lives, a decision no one should
take lightly. In all decisions, individuals should act ethically. Many however do
not. The jurors took a very carefree approach in the beginning hoping to make
the decision quickly and leave. They did not want to put forth any extra effort in
making this decision. They thought they knew all they needed to know. When
facts began to present in the jury room, many had forgotten very important ones.
Even after these new facts were presented they still wanted to quickly decide.
It took a long time, but a decision was made, not-guilty, one, which I think all the
jurors would be able to live with.
Many times several different leadership styles and approaches are
frowned upon, however the differences could prove to be beneficial as they did in
this situation. When you present your point of view, regardless of the initial
support, you will be heard, and you may just be the voice another person needs
to hear to speak out against the majority. Being the minority is not easy, but you
must exert the confidence and determination and be bold.