Twelve men enter a room in a court of law in New York in 1957. They are jurors, and their main purpose is to either save or convict the defendant of the death penalty. The courtroom is stuffy and temperatures are high, making it uncomfortable. Before the commencement of the court deliberations, the men momentarily take a break to discuss the case. The young defendant is on trial on allegations of having killed his father. In the preliminary vote, only one juror dissents from the defendant’s guilty verdict. This takes the case to the next level since the jurors did not reach a unanimous consensus. The dissenting juror has upset his colleagues.
Each of them presents an argument either for convicting or freeing the defendant. The ensuing discussions expose each of the juror’s opinions, biases, and personalities (Fonda & Rose, 1957). In each of the subsequent votes taken, the number of jurors who still held that the defendant was guilty dwindled further. In the end, all the jurors change their verdicts against the accused apart from juror no. 3. He is determined to ensure that the defendant faces the death sentence.
Initially, it appears that the case is not interested in solving the murder but in sending the defendant to the noose. The movie addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the use of a jury to resolve factual disputes. It also analyses the use of the principle of proving a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury system is based on a democratic process where jurors vote to either save or convict a defendant. The jurors hold biased opinions against the suspect for various reasons, including race, and this is one of its major weaknesses. A defendant can either be set free or convicted without presenting the logic of the case. Moreover, the juror can be composed of individuals controlled by prejudice and emotions rather than logic. In this case, the occupations, personalities, emotional tilts, backgrounds, and prejudices of the jurors define them. For instance, juror no. 7 grows impatient and hurries up discussions and voting to get time to attend a baseball game. The different approaches used and characterizations of the jurors should open doors for thorough scrutiny of individuals who make up the jurors.
One of the strengths of the use of a jury to resolve factual disputes lies in its ability to allow thorough debates about the evidence provided. The jurors meticulously interrogate the witnesses and their testimonies. Even those who voted in favor of the guilty verdict get an opportunity to present solid reasoning behind their actions. Juror no. 4 is a stoke broker but relies on pure logic and evidence presented to deliberate on the case. The case presented an opportunity to put forward solid evidence and counterarguments about the case. There is a thorough balancing between one piece of evidence against any other that seems inconsistent with it.
Reference
Fonda, H., & Rose, R. (1957). 12 Angry Men [film]. Orion-Nova Productions.