On Saturday, I watched 12 Angry Men, a 1957 courtroom drama film which depicts twelve men deliberating over whether they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a boy murdered his father. After a preliminary vote, one juror, Juror 8, who voted “not guilty,” stands in opposition against the eleven other jurors who voted “guilty.” The eleven were adamant that the case was an open-and-shut one: the boy clearly did it according to them. Juror 8’s single opposing vote forces the other jurors to discuss the facts of the case, much to their chagrin.
Over the course of the film, the opinions of the other jurors slowly change as Juror 8 entertains the possibility that all the facts are not as clear-cut as they thought. As the heated discussion ensues, the prejudices of some jurors are revealed. Since the defendant lives in the slums, they believe more strongly that he was guilty because of crime statistics and their preconceived notions about “those” children. As some jurors were denigrating these children, Juror 5, who grew up in the slums, stands up for them and calls out the jurors’ prejudices.
When the jury first started deliberating, all except Juror 8 kept saying that the boy obviously was unequivocally guilty. However, as the movie progresses, each testimony and exhibit is reexamined. For example, an elderly man claims to have heard the boy screaming when the alleged murder took place, while a woman’s testimony indicates that a loud elevated train sped by the apartment building as the murder was taking place. The jury eventually realizes that it would be nearly impossible to distinguish a person’s voice over the sound of a train moving adjacent to the building’s windows.
Near the end of the movie, just one juror, Juror 3, stands in opposition to eleven others believing that the boy is innocent – the opposite of how the movie began. He finally breaks down as he tears up a photo of his son with whom he has had a bad relationship. Juror 3 realizes that he was projecting his feelings about his son onto the defendant and changes his vote to “not guilty.”
Overall, I enjoyed this movie, especially how it does not depict the trial, but instead the jury deliberation afterwards, where the viewer slowly learns the facts of the trial. 12 Angry Men shows the real possibility of wrongful convictions if there are no stalwart jurors like Juror 8 to challenge the other jurors. The movie encourages all of us to examine the prevalence of prejudice in our society which leads to bias, while challenging us to rise above it.