Juror's Discrimination Depicted In 12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men is a film about 12 jurors arguing the conviction of a young man, charged with first degree murder. The conflict the men face causes them to rethink their opinions and values until everyone comes to an agreement that the boy is innocent. When the jurors meet in the jury room, they sit around the table and are numbered 1-12. Most of the jurors voted ‘Guilty’, but 8 jurors voted ‘Not Guilty’. When #8 was asked why he voted that way, he told them that a young man shouldn’t be sent off to die that quickly without them analyzing it. One of the witnesses attested that the defendant yelled “I’m gonna kill you!” to his father, the jurors used this as evidence that the boy is guilty, but when one juror says this to another, their eyes open

This was to prove that the woman had bad eyesight, therefore her testimony was not accurate. Juror number 10 showed harsh discrimination. He was constantly saying things about the defendant being from the slums. He got on a long rant about the boy, the other jurors got out of their seats and turned their backs to him. Juror number three took the case very personally. He was the last one to agree that the boy is innocent, since the vote had to be unanimous, the men were dependant on his vote. When his son was 16, they got into a fight and they have not seen each other in two years. This makes his son 18 years old, the same as the defendant. Juror number 7, I believe, was trying to catch a baseball game, the Yankees and Cleveland. He did not want to be on jury duty, but he couldn’t get out of it. He changed his vote to not guilty because he said he had enough and wanted to leave. This film successfully reflects the political tensions of America in the 1950s. It also accurately shows the need for a fair trial, prejudice, peer pressure, and the value of the justice system. All of these previously listed things are important to this