Jurors In The Film, 12 Angry Men

In the film, 12 Angry Men, there was a lot of information that was given out that affected the jurors’. The story takes place in a courtroom where a murder case was in session. The rest of the movie shows the jurors, deciding whether the defendant of the case was guilty or not guilty. The jurors initially wanted to sentence the boy as guilty after hearing testimony of the boy that killed his own father, but there were three other jurors who thought otherwise. Since the boy was from the slums, the jurors initially thought that he was scum and that people in the slums always would do something like that.
The first problem was the fact that the Jurors didn’t want to take too much time with the verdict. Usually in those type of cases, all of the …show more content…
The thoughts have to be displayed carefully among the jurors, because of a heavy sentence. If the boy was innocent and the verdict was guilty, then he would have been sentenced to death at that time. If jurors only cared about time in every case, then there would be a lot of wrong verdicts. Even though as a jury you want to get in and out of court, they have to realize that their decision can have a lasting effect on the defendant. Another problem with the juror’s initial decision is that they don’t really question the evidence at the beginning of the movie. Due to them wanting to leave quickly, they did not get the chance to sit there, look over and interpret the evidence. When one of the Jurors starts to question the murder, more and more of the jurors begin to realize that the boy might not have been the killer. One example of this is when some of the jurors begin to question how the father got stabbed. One of them said that the father was stabbed in a downward direction and the heights that were given did not add up. They stated that the father was 6’2 and the boy was shorter than him, so for him to do a downward stab would almost be impossible for his height. Another thing that had the jurors thinking was the banter