A View of 12 Angry Men

The movie 12 Angry Men is a snapshot of many of the changes going on in 1950’s- 60’s America. The movie begins by introducing the viewer to a, seemingly, open and shut case about a teenager from the slums murdering his father. It is revealed to us that it is the job of the twelve jurors who have heard the case to deliberate over all the evidence and return a, unanimous verdict to present to the judge. We quickly find out that all of the “evidence,” heard in the courtroom seems to be pointing squarely at the boy being guilty; and most of the jurors are happy to take the evidence at first glance clearly indicating the boy as the murderer. However it is when juror #8 protests: “that the jury should at least review the evidence,” before, for all intents and purposes, the boy is sentenced to the death penalty, when the men begin to be overcome by their prejudice towards the boy and his lifestyle. While the “villains,” such as juror 3 and juror 10,are quite obviously overwhelmed by their own strong feelings of prejudice; for many of the men it is a general prejudice toward the American Justice System which serves to blind them from the truth. They are supremely confident in the system working correctly every time, that they miss obvious mistakes and loose ends going on throughout the trial. With a few exceptions, it is the faith in the American System which contribute the original overwhelming feeling of prejudice in the room, all causing the room to be full with 12 Angry Men.

At this time in American life there was a supreme feeling of confidence and ethnocentrism; coming off World War II the nation is rebuilding, all while some racial and societal walls from the past are being broken down like never before. Rarely before in American history had whites and blacks worked as closely together as they had in World War II. While there was still a very large amount of racial segregation and discrimination, more than ever before acceptance and tolerance of another race was beginning to take place. While the trial, likely, did not start with all of the jurors planning on convicting the minority youngster, in many cases it was their subconscious prejudice along with their prejudice towards facts which led to the, initially, hasty decision making which took place. In my view, many of the problems with this case and the deliberation by the jury come from a bias toward the American Court System and the way it is meant to function, with facts being facts, but here the facts were clearly not facts at all but much more circumstantial evidence.

The initial conflict arises when juror 8 goes alone and solely votes the boy as not guilty. Considering the fan in the room is broken on the hottest day of the summer, and all the men will be locked into the room until a verdict is reached, the contrarian attitude of juror 8 first sets in motion the hostility and anger which begins to become evident in the room. Initially none of the other 11 can believe, after having seen the evidence and the trial, that juror 8 truly believes the boy is innocent. But this is the first time of many when juror 8 catches the men blatantly disregarding the justice system, which they all seem to hold so tightly. Juror 8 immediately reminds the men of the three main points of the American justice system