I was so excited to watch 12 Angry Men in Rose House, as I have heard it was a classic. Throughout the movie, I was so surprised at the turn of events that led to the jury to all go from guilty to nonguilty through heated discussions.

As I discussed the film with the rest of the Rose Scholars we talked about the reason jurors exist, to have a wide array of beliefs and prejudices that could overall lead to an unbiased decision. I was glad that it was not only the decision of the juror who was clearly racist and wanted the boy to go to jail because of his background. This movie reminded me of the TV show series that followed the OJ Simpson case as they focused on the jurors and how they came up with the decision that Simson was not guilty. That show, as well as Angry Men, displayed the complexity of having so many cultures and beliefs in one case decision. I wonder if those jurors in both cases truly believed in the outcome of the case or were going with the popularity decision. I would not blame the jurors as it is easier to go along with what everyone thinks than be firm in a decision that can impact someone’s entire life. It is better to divide the guilt in the decision, that way the fate of the boy is not only on one juror to decide.

The movie was a fantastic show but it really made me think about if the “right” outcome is always chosen.