How does Reginald Rose restore the audience's faith in the jury system as a means of achieving justice?

I think one of the most important ways in which the author
of this excellent play cleverly restores the audience's faith in the jury system is by
deliberately starting off the play with reference to the many criticisms that there are
of the jury system. Note how, for some of the jury members, once they have to decide the
fate of this young man some of them just want to get it over and done with as soon as
possible. This is most crassly seen in No. 7:

readability="6">

Right. This better be fast. I've got tickets to
The Seven Year Itch tonight. I must be the only guy in the whole
world who hasn't seen it
yet.

Thus Rose raises the
problem with jury systems: the members might rush to a conclusion because of the
inconvenience that it is to them and that they would not care about the fate of another
fellow being.

However, as the play progresses, the jury
moves from being 11 in favor of the accused being guilty to all accepting that each
piece of evidence is doubtful and thus the accused cannot be, beyond all reasonable
doubt, considered to be guilty. Each of the jury members is shown to be able to bring
their own personal knowledge and experience to bear in the case and to thus create cause
for reasonable doubt. Thus, having started off with such a negative impression of the
jury and their ability to administer justice, Rose is able to turn it around and show a
jury that has achieved justice through careful examination of the evidence provided. In
spite of our fears, thanks to No. 8, the jury members have shown themselves to be
obedient to the Judge's words at the beginning of the
play:

I urge
you to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully. You are faced with a grave
responsibility.