12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men

It is often said in this country that it is better to be rich and guilty than poor and innocent; and this would appear true. Only when people really take the time to do their duty and take everything into consideration without personal influences does there remain a chance for true justice. The story about 12 Angry Men is a good example of this statement. It involves a young man from a disadvantaged background that has been charged with murdering his father. 12 jurors are now responsible for decided his fate. Rather than showing us the trial, the film takes place in the deliberation room for almost it’s entire length. The jury appears to be an involuntary group because once and individual is selected for jury duty the individual is obligated by law to fulfill their jury duties. Also I believe the jurors to be a vertical group due to their relative differences in social classes. From those who feel the that lower class are born liars and a breeding ground for criminals, to those who were raised in the lower class themselves. They all have their own bias’s according to their own life experiences, and what follows is not only a discussion of the particular facts of the case, but an intense examination of the personal baggage that each jury member brings to the room.

The scene opens with the jurors casting guilty votes to determine a thoughtless verdict. They appear to be a contrasting group of men from different backgrounds and dispositions, but most have one thing in common. They are willing to take the case at face value, and are immediately ready to find the man guilty knowing this result would mean the death penalty. All eleven jurors, except one (juror 8) voted guilty. You would have to give this character credit to

go against the established norm of a guilty verdict by voting not guilty. Later on in the movie it could be argued that the norm had changed to not guilty instead of guilty as one-by-one all of the jurors...