12 Angry Men

Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting film about the jurors’ deliberations on a case that seems at first a no brainner. But in reality it proves to be a more complex case. As the evidence is brought up to question by the jurors themselves. The complexity of this case grew as the films went on. Then came the hard part, making the decision, guilty or not guilty. Especially when you have jurors that are over shadowed by prejudice that influence their decision. It is only when prejudice is set aside that the jurors’ are able to make a more logical decision on the case.
It is very obvious that most of the battle that juror #8 fought was the prejudices of the other jurors. Instead of a verdict being based on the facts and logic everyone just went with majority rule and did not think of the consequences of what might happen to the boy, which was life in prison or death. These issues are handled and challenged by Juror #8, instead of going along with the crowd and accepting the evidence as it was presented, he challenged everything. Since the boy was to be executed if found guilty his life was now in the hands of the jury and juror #8 reasoned that the least they could do was to talk about the case

case a bit. In addition, juror #8, no matter how emotional the discussion got he always kept his cool and had his task in mind. Juror #8 tried to do his best even when the odds were against him. He used logic to examine all the witnesses’ testimony. One of his most effective strategies was to keep on reminding the group they must acquit if they had any ‘reasonable doubt’. And notice that juror #8 set aside the prejudice remarks that were made by the other jurors. He did not even considered them to be relevant to the case.

Juror #3 took it a step further and started ranting about the “rotten kids these days...” the idea came from his own personal experience. Juror number 3 formed his own opinion beforehand against the defendant due to the fact that the boy told his father that he was going to kill him. With that sayings automatically Juror #3 portrayed him, the defendant, as guilty in his mind. Juror number three prejudice blinded him from the evidence presented in this case.

Another example is the way prejudice affects the way the jurors interact with each other. When juror #11 interrogates juror #7 for changing his vote without a cause. Juror #7 gets irritated and retaliates by using derogatory remarks like, “Who the hell are you to talk to me like that?...they are all the same ... I knock his Middle Eastern European Goddamn head off.” Not even Juror #7 can hold back his prejudice remarks, which affects the way they interact with each other. And in a jury room is very important that everyone cooperates because the purpose a case with a jury is so that they will subsequently rule based on the evidence as to the accused’s guilt or innocence. Because they are suppose to come out with a unanimous vote and it is very difficult to do this especially when prejudice towards one another is a factor.