The recently released movie on Max, Juror #2, inspired one of the best post-movie discussions in a long time. The premise of the question I’ll ask today requires me to share something that the movie reveals in the first 20 minutes, so if you want to watch it completely unspoiled, I highly recommend doing so–it’s a great film.
The lead character, Nicholas Hoult, finds himself on the jury for a murder case that happened around a year ago. Through a flashback, we learn that Hoult was at the bar the night of the murder. It was there that a man and his girlfriend got in a fight, and the woman’s body is found the following morning in a gully just off the road.
Here’s the twist: While driving home that dark and rainy night, Hoult hit something with his car. He doesn’t see what he hit, so he stops, gets out of the car to find a damaged headlight and nothing else. The collision happens directly in front of a “deer crossing” sign, so he assumes he hit a deer and continues to drive home.
Cut to a year later when he’s on the jury for this young woman’s death, and he realizes that he most likely hit her, not a deer. It’s a year later and he never saw anything, so he can’t be 100% sure, but it’s at the exact spot of her death, so it seems like too much of a coincidence.
Morally and ethically, it seems like the right thing for Hoult to do is tell the police what he thinks happened. After all, he’s on the jury for a murder that didn’t happen–an innocent man is on the line. But Hoult has a pregnant wife, and he sees another way out: If he can raise enough doubt among the journey that the man didn’t murder his girlfriend, then both he and the man walk away.
I’m leaving out some other nuances, but this is the key puzzle the movie presents, and it’s fascinating to watch it unfold. It probably isn’t fair for me to even ask what you would do if you found yourself in this precarious position. I think most of us would like to think that we’d do the right thing, but sometimes the right thing isn’t crystal clear or there are other considerations where multiple wrongs stem from one right. Regardless, I think it’s a great movie to approach with these questions, and I’m curious about your answer if you feel compelled to share.
You did leave out the nuance of a previous history of drinking of the man who hit the woman while sober this time, and if I recall a third strike which would have put the juror #2 behind bars for life almost guaranteed. That changes the equation a bit.
That’s true!
Chris in his comment said the most important part which the premise of his decision in my opinion stood on. If you confess you go to jail for sure. I would do the right thing but I wouldn’t get myself in this third strike situation.
But the thing that bothered me in this movie is that I knew how it’s going to end. i.e. he will try to make whole of the situation and get away with it but somehow he will be forced to confess anyway. Why? Because in american TV there can only be ONE outcome, the “bad” guy MUST pay for their sins, nothing else matters. While this is how real life should work, it’s annoying that TV doesn’t have more courage to tell a different story. Same exact thing happened with Dexter. That show had major balls until the very end of the show where it completely collapsed. And the last epilogue season didn’t do much to fix it.
That’s a fair point (and an interesting point about the outcome). I was trying to reframe the question for those of us who aren’t in the third strike position.