Twelve Angry Men: Guilty Or No Guilty

"Twelve Angry Men" is a film that reflects the jury system and legal justice in the United
States. It is an unbeaten classic in the film of legal subjects. Although the film is almost completed
in a scene from beginning to end, the content is quite rich, the rhythm is tidy, the plot is ups and
downs, the structure is closely connected, the theme is solemn, and there is no boring feeling to the
audience due to the limitations of the story scene. This deep discussion of the jury system's stakes
story has a strong dramatic appeal.
The film revolves around a story, an 18-year-old boy accused of killing his father in the middle
of the night and facing the death penalty sentenced to first-degree murder. Among the 12-member
jury, 11 jurors have already found the boy guilty. Only one juror felt that the case was unreasonable
and suspicious. He persistently put forward his own opinions, persuaded each juror through his
strong perseverance. After eight rounds of voting, 12 jurors all thought he was no guilty, and the boy
was finally acquitted.
"Twelve Angry Men" truly reproduces the jury system in American judiciary. The film gives a
comprehensive expression of the jurisprudence, which not only reflects the entire procedure of jury
organization and operation, but also reflects the jury's control over the trial results of the case. .
"Twelve Angry Men" originated from the judicial system of the United States. Although it cannot
completely restore a complicated and arduous judicial process, it strives to truly reproduce a judicial
process through law to achieve justice. It reflects the emotions, positions and value orientations of
legal justice in different classes and cultures, and strongly enhances Americans' belief in the law. In
this film, the audience can see the merger of the US judicial system and the responsibility and
power, which reflects an important point in the US judicial policy, that is, it is willing to let go
thousand, and will never kill one by mistake. The film subtly expresses respect for life, pursuit of
kindness, exploration of human nature, speculation of psychology, ability against adversity, and
reasoning of logistic. What the audience wants to see will look for something in the film, and each
has its place. This is the greatest charm of The Twelve Angry Man. Through the interpretation of the
film's protagonist, the audience witnessed the role of the jury system in American judiciary.
The Jury System
The jury system is to participate in and determine the prosecution of suspects and determine the
outcome of crimes through a specific number of eligible citizens. It is one of the unique systems of
American legal systems. In the film "Twelve Angry Men", the first theme of the film from the
beginning of the story is straightforward to explain, a guilty or innocent judgment against a young
boy, 12 ordinary people because of a case was selected and came together to form a jury that
determined the boy’s life and death. The American jury is divided into the grand jury and jury. The
grant jury is composed of 23 people. It is mainly to decide on the prosecution of major criminal
cases. The grand jury decides to request more than half of the jury. They can prosecute several cases

1
during the term of office. And the cases can be reviewed. The jury consists of 12 people, and it is
decided whether the defendant in the case is guilty or not. Everyone of the jury decides to agree then
it can be done. A case need a new jury. In the film "Twelve Angry Men", it is necessary to determine
the facts of the case whether the suspect is guilty. Therefore, the jury is the protagonist. This is the
source of the "Twelve Angry Men". The role of the jury is to judge whether the defendant is guilty,
not to find out who committed the crime.
The jury's choice is randomly selected from the local voter registration manual. Therefore, the
12 jurors in the Twelve Angry Men are ordinary citizens from different families, different cultures
and different life backgrounds. They have different life experiences. They have their own
preferences and their occupations are different, so everyone will be affected by their own interests.
These jurors did not know each other. After the end of the case, they were also the end of jury. They
did not interact with each other and still live the same life as before. The film doesn't even give these
characters names, but everyone has a code name. They don't know each other's names. After the trial
has a result, they will no longer remember each other's looks, and they may not meet each other for
the rest of their lives. . At the end of the film, the names of the two characters are introduced, and
only a small part has a close-up of the face.
The reason why they don't know each other is because these people are not from the same
organization or region, as long as citizens who have the right to vote in the United States are obliged
to serve as jurors. The selection of jurors is open, and the judges witnessed the lawyers of both the
prosecution and the defense. In the process of screening, they always abide by the principle that they
exclude candidates who are not favorable to their clients and will choose them later with careful
analysis and determination. The wages of these jurors during the hearing are paid by the court. In the
film, each of them receives a small amount of subsidy and a free lunch. At the same time, we can see
that not everyone wants to be a juror. The juror No.7 has always wanted to finish the game at night,
other jurors (except juror No.8) want to end vote early in addition to the sultry weather. This is
because these jurors have very little allowance during the hearing (only $16 plus free lunch), and
many citizens lack the political enthusiasm for jury. The juror No. 8 said "We have nothing to gain
or lose by our voting" and also proved that being selected as a juror is not a good errand.
"Let ordinary people referee ordinary people" is the essence of the jury system. The 12 jurors in
The Twelve Angry Men are not legal professionals. They have different career and life backgrounds,
and their education is not the same. Their judgment on this murder is a factual review of factual
issues. It is based on the common sense of life experience to explore some basic issues of right and
wrong, and has nothing to do with the law. For example, juror No. 5 judged that the weapon was
piercing the victim's body according to his own eyes when he was living in a slum. Juror No.8 ,
because he used to live by the railway, it is difficult to hear the noise of the people on the upper floor
because of the noise of the high decibel there. He suspected that lame old man claimed to hear the

2
accused shouting "I want to kill you" testimony. It can be seen that jurors do not need legal
knowledge, but the basic conscience of being an upright and responsible citizen. This kind of system
design precisely excludes the legal specialization tendency of the jurors, makes the factual problems
in the judicial process different from the legal issues, and uses an equal treatment position to avoid
the threat to the lives of individuals in a weak position. As for the identification of facts, an ordinary
person who has never received any legal training can make reasonable judgments based on basic
logic, experience and moral conscience of being a human being. Twelve unfamiliar people sit
together to judge one's life. They are driving their sacred rights through life experience, moral
conscience, and logical analysis.
In the United States, the efficiency and cost issues of the jury system have been widely
criticized. Many people believe that the jury system is outdated and the necessity of the jury system
is suspected. The "Twelve Angry Men" mentioned a "who advocates, who gives evidence" principle,
that is, the parties' claims to themselves are responsible for providing evidence. Specifically, the
plaintiff must prove the right of his complaint and his right to appeal; the plaintiff does not provide
evidence, the defendant wins the case; if the defendant makes a defense, it is necessary to prove the
defense. After the first vote, when the juror No.1 asked the juror No.2 to talk about why he was
charged with a crime, the juror No.2 said "I just think he is guilty, I mean no one has proved that he
is not guilty". Hearing the ignorance of the juror No.2, the juror No.8 immediately refuted:
"Whoever advocates, who gives evidence. The accused does not need to speak at all." It can be seen
that not all jurors are familiar with the United States judicial system. This is because the jurors are
randomly selected and cannot It may be possible to ensure that everyone is familiar with the legal
system, which is also a deficiency of the United States jury system.
But this film has positively explained the rationality of its existence from the core elements of
the jury system, such as different people's participation, reasonable doubt and unanimous ruling. It
seems to tell us in the case of the film: the jury system is a powerful country. The system of
protecting the rights of the people before the judicial power is also an effective way to achieve
judicial justice.
The film "Twelve Angry Men" embodies the premise of the existence of the jury system is that
ordinary citizens do not rely on legal procedures in the ruling on the facts of the case, and the core is
the fairness of the judicial process and people's life experience and initial rationality. Proceduralally
the accused is judged rationally by the average person. This rationality is a transcendence of the
rigid law itself within the legal framework. By relying on the reasonable doubts of a group of people
who do not understand the law, correcting the drawbacks of mechanical proceedings and evidence,
so as to protect the human rights of the accused and even every citizen, and realize the ultimate
value of the law - justice. The jurors are never attributable to the government, not to the judicial
system, and not to any political forces. However, as a kind of state power, judicial power naturally

3
has the inherent defects of state power--infringement of citizen’s interests due to easy abuse and
corruption. The jury system has largely overcome this shortcoming of the judicial power.
The significance of the jury system is to select a group of nationals to enter the judicial power
system through certain rules, and to share judicial power with professional judges. In the main body
of judicial power, the jury members are the main body of state power, and it is of course impossible
to abuse power to infringe on their own interests. Moreover, the role of the jury is to determine the
facts of the case. The judge can only apply the law on the basis of the facts of the case determined
by the jury. This realizes the restriction of the judicial power, and it has a unique meaning for
safeguarding the rights of ordinary citizens and other rights. At the same time, in accordance with
the exclusionary conditions stipulated by the law, except for a few people, ordinary citizens have the
right to participate in the jury. Therefore, when the jury hears the case, it realizes the people become
their own "judges". It is more conducive to protecting the rights and freedoms of the people. The
film presupposes the fact that the number of jurors is so large that it is not easy to produce man-
made manipulations and guarantees the integrity of the rights.
The jurors in the Twelve Angry Men are not only from different occupations, but also
representatives of different social classes. During the trial, the audience gradually learned their
identity, life background and social class: there are businessmen, bankers, salesmen, engineers, new
nobles, etc. They were randomly selected from local voter registration manuals in a certain
proportion. It is precisely because the jury members and the accused are both ordinary citizens, and
the jury members have certain reasonable criteria, such as excluding those who have a stake in the
accused or who have obvious prejudice as jurors, which makes the accused and the general public in
the society can accept the results of the case with peace of mind, and generally do not question the
outcome of the decision as in the case of a single judge. The public has confidence in their judicial
outcomes and is conducive to enhancing the credibility of the judiciary. In this case, the public can
rely on the judiciary to a higher degree, and it can better demonstrate the role of judicial power as
the last barrier to safeguard justice. At the same time, the film began to let the audience know that
after the trial ended, the jurors directly entered the review stage. This shows that the jury’s review of
the case until the final ruling is undisturbed, the public opinion directly enters the judicial field, and
the jury is the representative of the people. Jurors are the least manipulated by anyone. Because
bribing 12 jurors in isolation is more difficult than bribing someone. Although the jury system is not
perfect, it does not find a better system at present.
The jury system is the best way to instill the concept of the rule of law. According to relevant
data surveys, the impact of the jury's operation in the United States on the education of the people is
very significant. On the one hand, the jury establishes the legal beliefs of citizens. The system
allows ordinary people to participate in the national judicial process. Even if he was initially legally
blind, after the judge’s guidance on specific legal issues and personal experience of the entire trial

4
process, he was more powerful and influential than watching the TV. The feeling is more real. The
demonstration of the spirit of the judge, the solemn deterrence of the court, and the fierce arguments
of the lawyers will clearly give the ordinary citizens who have long been accustomed to living in a
society ruled by law often overlook the true rule of law the "rule of law" from a different
perspective. Gradually, more and more people fulfill the duties of jurors, so that the spirit of legal
beliefs is widely spread to other citizens. This is the "educational role" in the "function of law"
repeatedly mentioned in jurisprudence. The American jury system spread the concept of justice and
the judicial language to all walks of life, so that the language of the judiciary became almost
common language. The spirit of jurists gradually came out of schools and colleges extending to the
whole society and reaches the lowest level, so that all the people are infected. This system also
teaches everyone to respect the facts of the judgment, develop a sense of law-abiding and respect for
rights, and accept the spirit of tolerance, negotiation and compromise.
The three paragraphs in this film show this ambition nakedly. One of them is juror No. 11
watchmaker said: "We will come here, not to quarrel. We have a major responsibility. I always feel
that this is the advantage of a democratic society. We received a letter and were notified to come
here and decide whether he was guilty or not. We have no benefit, no loss from the decision. That is
reason our country can be so strong." Second juror No. 8 said: "I really don't know what the truth is.
I don't think anyone should know what the truth is... but we have reasonable doubts. That is a very
precious part of our judicial system. Unless it is absolutely certain, it is impossible for the jury to
determine that the defendant is guilty." After a long and fierce defense, one of the protagonists said
the meaning of the jury: the jury has great responsibility and they have great democracy. These jury
members are recognized and believe they can help innocent people. All the noble powers in their
hands are the reason for the jury's strength. The three monologues clearly show the audience that the
film thinks American jury system should be reasonable.
The Principle of "Unanimous Ruling"
In the Twelve Angry Men, the judges indicated at the outset that no matter whether they are
guilty or not guilty, your decisions must be the same. The reason this sentence should be emphasized
is because the United States is pursuing the unanimous ruling in the case. The jury system requires
each juror to judge the facts based on life experience and inner conscience after listening to the full
case court. The judge uses the law to make a final judgment based on the facts determined by the
jury. In many American states jurisdictions, juries in criminal cases are required to make unanimous
decisions, especially in the case of the Twelve Angry Men in the alleged murder. Although the first
vote in the film showed the majority of the jurors’ opinions with the absolute advantage of 11 votes
compared to 1 vote, the failure to give the defendant the “murderer” was because the jurors did not
reach an agreement.
The charge in the case was a first-degree murder, and all jurors’ decisions must be consistent in

5
order to present the ruling to the judge: if the conviction is convicted, the juvenile will be sentenced
to death; if they fail to reach an unanimous ruling, then there will be “A jury of indecision." When
this happens, the judge will declare "missing", which means that the trial is over before the judgment
is made. Normally, the court will reconstitute the jury for retrial at some point in the future until the
jury agrees. After the first vote in the film, 11 people voted for guilty votes, and only the juror No. 8
voted for the acquittal. After some discussion, the juror No.8 still insisted on his own opinion. At
this time, the jury No. 10 said angrily "if you want the jury to be unable to make a judgment, listen
to it. The child will be tried again and will still be found guilty." Here, "receiving the trial again"
means re-establishing a new jury to review and decide. Similarly, after the third vote, the stalemate
of 6:6 was formed. When the third proposal was made "it is better to treat the case as a pending
case," the juror No.7 commented immediately. "Take him to another 12 people to see him. How is
the luck? “ It can be seen that if the jury's opinion cannot be agreed, it will be selected by another 12
people to re-establish the jury, re-hearing and commenting.
The process of judging the facts and how to form a ruling is absolutely confidential, so the
entire film is in the secret room. Only in this way can ensure that jurors make rulings that are free
from outside interference to maintain relative fairness and justice. The judge must abide by the
jury’s acquittal of the accused. As for the standard of the referee, what jury need to do is to rely on
their own life experience and simplicity. It is the non-standard and the evidence provided by the
prosecution and the defense to make a verdict. This means that the jury will judge whether a suspect
is guilty by a rational person's conscience, basic right and wrong ideas and simple legal knowledge.
This point reflects a return to the human instinct, which is the attitude expressed in the face of the
most self-examined. This is also the core of the value structure unique to the jury system.
According to the law, members of the jury can go home and leave this breathless place as long
as they are guilty by unanimous vote. They can't wait to make a ruling because they really don't
want to stay in this small space anymore. The sultry heat here makes them feel anxious. They think
about the game that will be airing soon, thinking about their business and stocks. In short, what they
want is to leave immediately, and there is no real role in jury. The name and evidence of fair law is
just an excuse to go home immediately. When they eagerly voted to go home, one of the 12 people
made a decision that the boy was not guilty. In everyone's anger and incomprehensible emotions, the
juror No.8 insisted on his own judgment and patiently explained to everyone, convincing everyone
to overthrow their original judgment. The whole story of the film is full of twists and turns. In the
final unified vote, the process of six votes has been experienced. Through the secret vote, the show
of hands, and the verbal vote, the previous 11:1 gradually changed to 10:2, 8: 4, 6:6, 3:9, 1:11, until
the last juror also gave up the initial position, arguing that the boy was not guilty.
This film is also a good interpretation of the American democratic system. Judging from the
jury's voting rules, to determine the guilty of a suspect, it must be passed by the whole vote, rather

6
than "the minority obeys the majority." As long as one person holds an objection, others must listen
to his point of view and the discussion must continue. Regardless of how disparate the votes are, as
long as someone proposes to vote, the moderator must organize a vote and cannot save these steps
for any reason. Therefore, everyone has the right to doubt everything, think independently, and
express their opinions. It is also because of this right that people are willing to think and think more
effectively. Therefore, it is often more reasonable and effective to restrict, regulate behavior and
protect rights from the system.
For people in non-jury system countries, the jury system requires that 12 members must reach a
comprehensive and consistent “demanding request”, which is somewhat puzzling, because it does
not seem to be in line with people’s common sense that “democracy is the minority to obey the
majority” as everyone knows. It is precisely the core of the spirit of democracy that requires the jury
to reach a comprehensive agreement. It is not to uphold the majority of the rights and interests of the
majority, but to respect the principle of each individual and ensure that everyone’s rights and
interests are given enough attention and protection. When the contradiction between the majority
and the minority is related to human life, the care of the individual is particularly important because
it is an irreversible procedure. Therefore, what the jury system has to do is not to bring every bad
person to justice accurately. While minimize the probability of making mistakes and ensure that no
good person suffers. In this sense, the Twelve Angry Men is universally popular and is the
foundation of the United States that is proud of American. It is the jury system that gives every
ordinary person the opportunity to participate in a judicial system that is related to social justice and
maintenance. It helps people understand the rules and effects of the law and, more importantly, helps
people know how to respect the rights and powers that the law gives them. They are the cornerstone
of the American democratic system.
Reasonable Doubt
Twelve Angry Men can be said to be a classic interpretation of how the jury used reasonable
doubt rules to review criminal cases. The Twelve Angry Men truly reproduces the jury's ruling
principle. At the beginning of the Twelve Angry Men, the judge said a paragraph before the jury's
deliberation: "If you can make reasonable doubts and cannot determine whether the defendant is
guilty, based on this reasonable doubt, you must make a sinless judgment; If you can't find
reasonable doubt, you must decide that the defendant is guilty based on your conscience."
The juror No. 8 who first questioned the film, strictly speaking, the starting point of his
objection was not that he was convinced that the boy was not guilty, but that he accidentally bought
the so-called weapon in the grocery store near the boy’s house. The knife with the pattern printed, so
began to doubt the uniqueness of the weapon, thus he raised doubts, and first proposed that the boy
is "not guilty." The so-called reasonable suspicion can be understood as an ordinary rational person
who, through his daily social life experience, has doubts about the criminal facts. And this suspicion

7
should be wise, prudent and rigorous. Back in the film, the suspicion of the juror No. 8 is not
fabrication and imagination. His suspicion is based on facts: the knife that can be easily bought, the
myopia of a woman witness, and the mental state of a lame old man. The timely argument of the
jury No.8 in the secret review room is undoubtedly a hope for the accused boy to survive in the first
line: a so-called “tolerance” and "trust" to the accused under the condition that the evidence and
testimony are not fully convinced.
Although the United States has subdivided the principle of “reasonable doubts” as
“constitutional principles”, the states have full “discretion” for the specific connotation and
application of this principle, and different interpretations can be made. In the Twelve Angry Men,
the jury No. 8 is not sure that the boy is not a murderer. The reason why he insisted that everyone sit
down and discuss it is just because of a "moral confirmation" of a rational person. He said we should
give him a chance at first, and he constantly questioned "assuming we were wrong?" But the jurors
who are in a hurry, the unfamiliar rich family, the new aristocrats who discriminate against the poor,
and the old police who are temperamental have not reached the standard of rational people.
The California court of the United States believes that reasonable doubt means that "the case is
in such a situation: after comprehensively comparing and considering all the evidence in the case,
the jurors cannot say that they have firmly believed in the facts of the allegations." In the Twelve
Angry Men only the jury No. 8 did not form a firm belief in the defendant's guilt based on the
existing evidence, so a large similar dialogue would appear: "Do you really think he is innocent?" "I
don't Know." "I want to ask you, do you really believe his rhetoric?" "I don't know, maybe I don't
believe it." But, ironically, the No. 8 juror who did not form a firm belief contributed to the boy's
acquittal, while the other juror No.11 who initially believed that the boy was guilty almost made a
big mistake.
The “suspect of reason” became a very common method of interpretation of the principle,
requiring judges and juries to have evidence, procedures and other support in deciding to apply the
principle . In this sense, in the Twelve Angry Men, the process of trial, the juror No.8 was actually
used the evidence to gradually cause other jurors to have reasonably doubted. It is proved that not
only the boy had similar tools for committing crimes, but also because of the difference between the
height of the boy and the victim, the direction of the knife and the unreliable testimony of the old
man and the woman, the jurors are more and more produced reasonable suspicion. In the end, the
judgement of the boy as a murderer is insufficient.
In addition, there are scholars in the United States who respond to the principle of "reasonable
doubts" by using the "fictional third person" standard and the social common consciousness
standard. These standards are also reflected in the Twelve Angry Men, such as juror No. 8 had
always stressed that "I have always let myself stand in the child's point of view". This is the
embodiment of the "fictional third person" standard, that is, from the perspective of the criminal

8
suspect. Besides, the jurors pretended as witnesses. The lime old man heard the sound and went
downstairs to observe the crime scene. It was found the untrue of the testimony of the old man. This
is actually a recurrence of the scene to enable the jurors to reach a common sense that the old man
could not be in fifteen seconds going out of bed and going to the door to see the crime scene. It can
be seen that different courts have different ways of interpreting and thinking in different cases for
reasonable doubt. Perhaps because of this, the American Court of Appeals in multiple states insists
that judges should not be allowed to jury to explained what the principle means.
Reanalysis of Justice
The author is exploring the rationality of the jury system in the United States: if there is no
such jury, or if the jury members do not do their best, the boy is likely to be killed. Only with the
"reasonable doubt" of the jury, they changed their votes again and the boy’s fate were rewritten. This
is what the US judiciary has always advocated:"It is better to let go of a thousand, and it is good to
kill one."
There are two important witnesses mentioned in the film: one is the old man who is living
downstairs in the same building as the boy; the other is the woman who is facing the boy from the
street. She looked at the boy who grew up. They are not directly stated in the film, and all of them
are endorsed by others. Their testimony is spoken from the mouth of jury member, and this is very
important for analyzing the underlying significance of the film. The testimony of the two witnesses
seems to be like a mountain. The “innocent” party had overcome and eventually “save” the boy.
However, when viewed repeatedly, it was found that there were some vulnerability in the strict
reasoning of the 12 jurors . Now let us rethink and judge again.
About the motive for killing, the juror No.8 thought the two slaps were not enough to create a
motive for killing. Conversely, why is it impossible? Perhaps, as other juror said, maybe the boy was
really mad at the time? People will also have impulsiveness. Therefore, the juror No.8 said “ murder
motive is not established" is worthy of scrutiny.
About the falseness of the testimony of the elderly, the juror No.9 proves that the testimony of
the elderly witness may be an illusion. If we rethink: Is it true that the old man has no conscience? Is
he necessary to fabricate this testimony? What kind of hatred does he want to set the boy who is
only 18 years old to die? The film obviously sacrifices the kindness and humanity of the absentee.
Because the old man did not appear directly in the film, the audience would naturally ignore this.
Why did the boy go home at 3 am to get the knife? For the first time, there was no positive
rebuttal. The film toke a way of avoidance. The second time when other jurors were guessing
possibilities, the possibility of this discussion was easily transferred by the juror No.8. He said even
if these were true, there were other doubts. Therefore, this question is equal to an invalid discussion.
Because the problem that really needs to be discussed here is that the boy is not at the scene when
killing, not why he is going home at 3 o'clock! Compared to the urgent need to prove the problem of
"not at the scene when killing," he will go home at 3 o'clock or not. Going home is not important at

9
all. So this is a pseudo-proposition itself. The rationality of surface reasoning has caused viewers to
lose deep discernment.
About the simulation experiment, the elderly can't walk from the bedroom to the door within 15
seconds. How reliable is the authenticity of this “simulation”? The simulation experiment itself has a
lot of inaccuracies. The audience did not see the old man who was testified. How can we be sure that
the juror No. 8’ simulation is the original real situation? The key to the problem is that the old man
saw the boy rushing downstairs. It is very likely that the old man is too old to know how many
seconds he has spent. This situation is very likely.
The boy did not know the name and starring of the movie because he was under pressure. In
fact, this is also a little logical confusion. What has been proved here is that the juror No. 4 can't
remember the name and starring of the movie that he saw on Monday, and he did not suffer
emotional pressure at the time. Furthermore, it is clear that anyone can not remember the movie’s
name and starring after watching the movie, regardless of whether he is under pressure. Apparently
the juror No.8 is trying to prove that the boy was under tremendous pressure, so it was reasonable to
remember what movie was being watched at the time.
We compare the situation of jury No. 4 with the boy: the juror No. 4 was asked to recall the
movies by juror No.8. From yesterday, the day before yesterday, the day before yesterday to
Monday night, it was "interrogated" after four days. He did not remember the movie and the name.
But the boy went out to watch the movie at 11:30 that evening. He came back to the kitchen at 3 am
and was interrogated. He didn't remember the movie name and starring. The interval between the
two was three hours. The problems of these two analogies are not completely consistent. At this
time, the film used the juror No. 4 recall four days ago as an argument to prove that the boy’s
recollection of the day was not appropriate, and it was even more irrelevant to the pressure.
About the glasses on the nose of the female witness. In the film, the jurors said that this is a
near-sighted person. At night, no one will sleep with glasses, so she only sees a vague shadow. If the
female witness sees a vague shadow, why does she not make this clear in the court, not to mention
that she is "looking at the boy growing up", why does she have to put the boy to death? Or this
woman does not lying, as doubts on the 3rd, if she is farsighted, 60 feet she can certainly see clearly.
Or is the woman at that time just wearing glasses with something?
Fortunately, the two witnesses are on the court. If the witness did not appear in court to testify?
No one can find such details, and the contradictions in this testimony will always be buried, and may
lead to defamation. Many people think that there is a witness's inquiry record in the file, and the
public prosecutor read the witness testimony in court, which is enough to prove the case. Have you
thought after watching this movie?
For juror No.3, after shredding his photo with his son, he changed his "guilty" without warning.
This is hard to understand and is the reason mentioned above but not explained too much. The only
explanation for this "magical scene" is that in this case, it is completely under pressure from the

10
other 11 people, and juror No. 3 has lost his position that he has always insisted.
In fact, this is one of drawbacks that the film is not easily noticed: the film always sacrifices
the individual kindness, whether it is the elderly witness and the street woman who are not present,
or the juror No.3 himself, by sacrificing the goodness and conscience of the individual in exchange
for the fairness and justice of the entire law.
Since the film is flawed, why is the audience so convinced? The big reason is that the film
showed the audience the innocent face of the boy at the beginning of the film: tears in the eyes,
words and stops, and hardships, let the audience produce deep sympathy. The film presupposes a "no
sin" boy image and has always pushed the audience to identify in this direction. Therefore, while the
audience is attracted by the storyline that is progressive, it is also hoped that the jury can prove that
the boy is not guilty. So "the innocent face" became the biggest obstacle to the film's operation. The
film is moving in line with the audience and the audience is even more difficult to detect.
The ending of the film was that the jurors walked out of the courthouse, and the heavy rain
finally stopped, which contrasted well with the description of the hot weather in the beginning of
film. This detail portrays as if the defamation case was rehabilitated and justice was done. It seems
that we can conclude from this that the United States jury system is by far the most judicial system
that embodies the idea that "all rights belong to the people", because the jury provides a platform for
the general public to exercise their power. It represents the public opinion to the maximum extent.
One of the most critical issues left by the film is that the film at around 40 minutes——the
juror No.6 who is a office worker asks juror No. 8 in the bathroom: "If you can really convince us,
but the boy really killed his father with a knife. What about the father?" This question was raised in
the film, but it was not answered.
According to common sense, at least the murderer must be found in order to finally confirm
that the boy is not guilty, otherwise the boy will not be able to escape the suspicion. But in fact, the
film avoids a series of questions and blindly pushes the results to the direction of the "innocent" that
has been scheduled. This fully reveals the underlying of the film: a high praise for the United States
judicial system, especially the jury system and the "reasonable suspicion" Principle, which is
advocated in the United States justice. "It is better to let go of a thousand, not to kill one." ".
If “the boy really took the knife to kill his father?" This question may be the opening of classic
film. It is still fascinating.

11