An uneducated, teenaged Puerto Rican, tenement-dwelling boy is judged for killing his father with a knife. Twelve men are brought together in a small room on a stifling hot summer day to decide the boy is guilty or not. .
The jury of twelve "angry men" are entrusted with the power to send him to the electric chair. Nevertheless personalities rather than facts can influence the outcome of a case. In this case we can see the twelve men's deepseated biases, cultural differences, anger, ignorance, racism and quick judgement. .
When they vote some of the jurors make their decisions quickly, others are in two minds so they hesitantly join them. Nevertheless, one dissenting juror (Juror 8) votes "not guilty" because of his reasonable doubt. He forces the other men to reconsider the case against the endangered defendant. He votes not guilty, not because he is sure of the boy's innocence, but, because he wishes to talk about the serious case without emotionally pre-judging the boy. All of the jurors tell their opinions. Juror 3 is a rude,husky man. He is intolerant and loudmouthed. He has estrangement from his own teenaged son causes him to be hateful and hostile toward all young people. So, he is biased to the defendant, he states the boy is definitely guilty. Juror 4 is a well educated , smug stockbroker. He possesses an incredible recall and grasp of the facts of the case. He states that the boy's alibi is flimsy, he doubts the boy's claims. He adduces about how slum conditions breed criminals, in his opinion children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society. This revelation annoys Juror 5, because, he is a hispanic man, who has slum-dwelling experience. Juror 6 is a simple man. He experiences difficulty in making up his own mind, he is a follower. He believes the testimony of the people in the kid's apartment. Juror 7 is an impatient salesman. He doesn't care about anyone but himself.