Goda Jakubauskaitė II course 4 group

“12 Angry Men” – it is a film about twelve jurors who have to decide whether a young man is guilty
or innocent – a Puerto Rican youth is on trial for murder, accused of stabbing his father to death. The
case is believed to be a complex one due to the fact that the premeditated murder is the most serious
charge tried in criminal courts and the punishment is a death sentence. It is obvious that one man is
dead, another man’s life is at stake. Jurors are obliged to bring a verdict unanimously.
Action takes place on the stage of jury room. Each juror has different background. For instance, one
is an immigrant, another is a banker, who goes with the majority, there also is a garage owner, who
possesses both – anger and intolerance. At the beginning, all jurors are not concerned about the case
and after the voting the position is clear – the boy is guilty. Only Juror 8 claims the opposite.
When it comes to the way towards the verdict it is clear that the process is extremely complicated.
All jurors are known to consider the facts and witnesses testimonys’. The diversity of jurors
determines different arguments on both sides (guilty or not guilty). Despite that, Juror 8 is an excellent
mediator who changes other’s minds. He is an architect, wise and experienced man, calm and, of
course, a do-gooder. The main reason why he votes “not guilty” is the idea that he is not sure if the
boy is a killer, he just takes preference to the discussion of the case. Juror 8, basically, helps to take
a closer look into the facts, he even tries to illustrate some of them and in the end it predestines the
verdict “not guilty”.
This film is a masterpiece not only due to the brilliant acting but also for its’ message to the audience.
It lets us see that the first sight could be wrong, everyone has to look deeper into the evidence and
should not follow the stereotypes or inner beliefs. Furthermore, “12 Angry Men” is said to be a
compulsory movie for all law students. Not only do the film show the process of facts evaluation but
it also expresses the idea – there is always a possibility to prove otherwise, if someone makes a
mistake while investigating the evidence.
To conclude, I would like to make a quote from the film: “I don't really know what the truth is. I don't
suppose anybody will ever really know. We're just gambling on probabilities - we may be wrong. We
may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don't know. Nobody really can. But we have a reasonable
doubt, and that's something that's very valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless
it's sure“ which illustrates that, especially in the legal field of activities, we cannot trust the first sight,
need to evaluate every possibility and be confident to make the most rational choice.