I remember vaguely reading Twelve Angry Men as an eighth grader. Despite not fully enjoying my teacher at the time, as I think back, I realize that I actually really enjoyed and appreciate what we read that year, like Macbeth and To Kill a Mockingbird, and much more so than any of my high school English classes. I can’t remember exactly how we read Twelve Angry Men. It could have been out loud or maybe just at home, but I do remember liking the story. I couldn’t tell you off the top of my head exactly what happened, but I did remember the story had to do with a room of jurors eventually changing their mind and I remembered something about how a knife was held.

After not thinking about this for the past several years, I was curious to see if the story I vaguely remembered enjoying would hold up in film form. I think it definitely did. While it would have been helpful in a couple of parts to have subtitles, I think one of the best things about how it’s written is the fact that it’s a simple story that makes sense. While it does jump around a little bit in the description of what happened and how things are presented, but the explanation of the case is laid out for the audience, and a more detailed picture is built over the hour-and-a-half-long film.

One thing I noticed during the film was that no one was ever given a name. We didn’t know the name of the victim, the boy, either witness, or any of the jurors. But the story still works. Another thing I thought was curious during the film was that there was also a women’s bathroom in the jury deliberation room. There’s little setup to the plot, so we don’t know why this jury happens to be all men, but it did make me think. If the only juror who initially voted not guilty was a female in that room of headstrong men, would the same result have been reached? Would she feel as confident as to stand her ground and not be dismissed for being female? Does this happen in modern day cases?

The last time I was in a courthouse, I think it was again in eighth grade, on a civics field trip. We briefly heard a bit of a medical malpractice case, but I think that’s my only in-person experience of a trial. I’ve seen my fair share of TV lawyers and TV judges, but haven’t really been part of the process. That’s not to say I’m not interested. As long as it’s not terribly timed, I think I would really enjoy the experience of serving on a jury.

That being said, after the film ended, there was a little bit of a discussion about jury duty. I’ve never been summoned myself, I believe my dad has been, a couple of times now. I’m not sure if he was ever chosen to actually serve on a jury, but I do think it’s interesting that you could be dismissed for any number of reasons. I like the idea of trial by a jury of your peers, but I also think it can be really flawed. In this story, in particular, if the one juror who had a little bit of doubt was not in the room, an eighteen year-old would have been placed on death row. If the same juror had failed to convince anyone else to agree with him, the eighteen year-old would have been placed on death row. If the public defender had been a little more diligent in creating a case to help his client, regardless of whether he thought he was guilty or not, maybe there would be a different outcome. This story clearly points out some of the issues in the court system, but without a better alternative, at least the system tries to be just.