The William Friedkin directed drama features a hot debate among 12 jurors whose main objective is to either convict or free a young man- the kid, who has been accused of murder charges. The judge clearly instructs the jury that whatever decision they should make could greatly affect the defendant’s life. Among the 12 judges, 11 of them vote guilty for the defendant but juror number 8 (Fonda) disagrees with them citing reasonable doubt and considering the defendant’s ghetto lifestyle. Fonda attempts to convince the fellow jurors of his point of view claiming the boy has a right to a fair hearing (12 Angry Men). Unlike in most movies where the judge is on the spotlight, the jury is the main concentration of the movie. This paper looks into deliberation,
…show more content…
The rule of the majority seems to be somewhat inaccurate in its decision-making process. This questions democracy as the rule of the majority whereby 11 out of 12 jurors make a biased decision which by the rule of democracy is supposedly right. The aspect of justice denial and reasonable doubt in the jury system is also quite evident throughout the deliberation. How effective can such a biased institution be in delivering justice to minority defendants such as the kid in the movie? The movie questions the capability of stereotypic jurors and a jury system that is inconsiderate of the people they choose to deliberate on key issues as these. It is only after the intervention of a single right-minded person that justice is relayed and the entire jury system is reformed. As such, the author of the teleplay was able to stress the need for reasonable doubt and a reasonable free-thinker to stand up for such unfortunate people as the defendant (12 Angry …show more content…
The jury represents the unbiased public that would have reasoned out and decided whether to convict or free the defendant. The concept of a small number of people is also evident in the nature of the deliberation in that it is only a single person out of twelve that can see the bigger picture. The jury does not seem to understand the need of a freethinker regardless of his/ numbers amongst the jurors. They are uncertain of Fonda’s point of view which prompts them into the deliberation which they also did not seem to care about. However, they all play along eventually (12 Angry Men). Despite the fact that deliberation came a longer way than we expected, the heated debate eventually developed which aligns with Gastil’s definition of high-quality jury
The rule of the majority seems to be somewhat inaccurate in its decision-making process. This questions democracy as the rule of the majority whereby 11 out of 12 jurors make a biased decision which by the rule of democracy is supposedly right. The aspect of justice denial and reasonable doubt in the jury system is also quite evident throughout the deliberation. How effective can such a biased institution be in delivering justice to minority defendants such as the kid in the movie? The movie questions the capability of stereotypic jurors and a jury system that is inconsiderate of the people they choose to deliberate on key issues as these. It is only after the intervention of a single right-minded person that justice is relayed and the entire jury system is reformed. As such, the author of the teleplay was able to stress the need for reasonable doubt and a reasonable free-thinker to stand up for such unfortunate people as the defendant (12 Angry …show more content…
The jury represents the unbiased public that would have reasoned out and decided whether to convict or free the defendant. The concept of a small number of people is also evident in the nature of the deliberation in that it is only a single person out of twelve that can see the bigger picture. The jury does not seem to understand the need of a freethinker regardless of his/ numbers amongst the jurors. They are uncertain of Fonda’s point of view which prompts them into the deliberation which they also did not seem to care about. However, they all play along eventually (12 Angry Men). Despite the fact that deliberation came a longer way than we expected, the heated debate eventually developed which aligns with Gastil’s definition of high-quality jury