Following the closing arguments in a murder trial, the 12 members of the jury must deliberate, with a guilty verdict meaning death for the accused, an inner-city teen. As the dozen men try to reach a unanimous decision while sequestered in a room, one juror casts considerable doubt on elements of the case. Personal issues soon rise to the surface, and conflict threatens to derail the delicate process that will decide one boy's fate. In 12 angry men, there has to be a unanimous decision on the jury. It had to be a 12 out of 12 vote, either guilty or not guilty. 11 out of the 12 men voted guilty at the start and everybody was shocked when they saw that one person voted not guilty. They started questioning the juror right away, bombarding him with questions and why he thinks that the victim is not guilty. Now it seemed like the juror at first didn’t have any reason why the boy could be not guilty, but over the course of the movie he was clever and gave good reasoning. He didn’t want to vote guilty right away because he wanted to give the boy a chance and he said that you can’t just give somebody a life like that. He thought that every life should be fought for in court, which I …show more content…
I was eager to hear the juror's reasoning on why he voted not guilty. I agree with giving the boy a second chance because life is so precious and I think that he shouldn’t be voted guilty right away. My view did change on the boy throughout the movie. I think the turning point for me was that the juror brought in a knife exactly like it after they were told that it was one of a kind. It was a big deal that the witnesses testified against the boy. I think that made the majority of the jurors say that the boy was guilty. Just the things that juror 8 pointed out were really clever and strong reasons in my opinion and I was shocked when he came up with all of those