The film 12 Angry Men is a dramatization of twelve men that serve as a jury in a trial for a teenage boy accused of murdering his father. The film explores the complications that may cloud the judgment of everyday men as they deliberate the guilt or exoneration of the defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt. The decision must be unanimous for a guilty verdict will result in a mandatory death sentence. The jury of twelve is tasked with the ethical responsibility of patiently reviewing the evidence of the case; to fully understand the impact of their decision and then enter a judgment without personal bias. The ethical dilemma the jury is faced with is the question of whether they are fulfilling their ethical responsibilities or are they serving their own interests? There are several issues, both personal and communal, amongst the jury members that hinder the impartial analysis of the evidence that was presented against the defendant.
All of the jury members except one did not fully understand the impact of their decision. At the beginning of the meeting, the majority of the group was openly against the idea of continued deliberations once the initial count of votes resulted in 11 to 1 in favor of a guilty verdict. This display is …show more content…
Before the meeting had officially started, juror #10 reveals his preconception of the defendant by stating that the neighborhood from which the boy resides produced “kids [that] run wild” and hinting that perhaps the father deserved what happened (Dirks, 2014). Juror #10 continued to be very open of his prejudice against the boy and where he was from, making generalizations such as that “it’s in their nature [to be] violent” and “they’re no good, not one...” (Dirks, 2014). It is in these remarks that it becomes obvious that his vote of guilty is a result of his prejudice rather than subjective
All of the jury members except one did not fully understand the impact of their decision. At the beginning of the meeting, the majority of the group was openly against the idea of continued deliberations once the initial count of votes resulted in 11 to 1 in favor of a guilty verdict. This display is …show more content…
Before the meeting had officially started, juror #10 reveals his preconception of the defendant by stating that the neighborhood from which the boy resides produced “kids [that] run wild” and hinting that perhaps the father deserved what happened (Dirks, 2014). Juror #10 continued to be very open of his prejudice against the boy and where he was from, making generalizations such as that “it’s in their nature [to be] violent” and “they’re no good, not one...” (Dirks, 2014). It is in these remarks that it becomes obvious that his vote of guilty is a result of his prejudice rather than subjective