The center stage of the film takes place in a courtroom where a diverse group of 12 jurors were

gathered together to deliberate on the “facts” presented in a murder trial and to eventually decide on
the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of knifing his father to death. It is an interesting and
thought-provoking film albeit having the majority of its scenes largely limited within the confines of a
courtroom. Instead, the film focuses more on the argumentation and the interaction among the jury
members as they deliberate on the case and give justifications on their respective positions with
regards to the guilt of the accused.

At first instance, the film opened on what appears to be a premeditated murder case but as the
movie progress, details -- even the most tiniest details of the case were re-examined with scrutiny
with the jurors arguing and evaluating on the evidential circumstances presented, the certainty of a
guilty verdict became less convincing. It is important to consider how the film explores the varying
personalities of each jury member taking into account the deep-seated personal prejudices,
perceptual and racial biases, indifference and anger of some of the jury members. It is also here we
see how these personal biases and prejudices undermined the decision-making abilities of some of
the jurors, causing them to ignore the real issues of the case and potentially leading them to render
an unjust decision.

Prejudice and Stereotype

Prejudice and stereotype are present everywhere. Regardless of the place, the people you talk to or
your status in life, there will always be prejudices and stereotypes. It is a common occurrence in our
society. Even judges, lawyers, public officers, jury members and other figures in the criminal justice
system are guilty of making bias and rash decisions.

Justice

One of the prevailing theme in the movie “12 Angry Men” is justice. From the first few parts of the
movie, we learned that an 18 year old boy is accused of killing his father and his guilt is to be
determined by 12 jurors. The primary objective is to determine the boy’s guilt and innocence, which is
the very heart of our justice system.

In the juror’s hands, justice is seen as something that is too fragile and subject to the whims of the
jurors who just wants to go home and escape the unbearable heat of the room and into the comforts
of their home. With the exception of the 8th juror - Mr. Davis who bothered to think twice before
casting his vote. Through his persistence, he convinced the rest of the jurors to open their minds and
review the facts of the case, discussing the details that might have been missed, arguing back and
forth with their values, prejudices and personal ideas evident in their argument. The 8 th juror forced
the others to confront their own biases and give the 18 year old boy accused of killing his very own
father, a fair and equal shot in the trial. Through the 8 th juror and as he was joined by the others, we
see a different perspective of justice. A kind of justice that favors the accused.

The conception of justice remains complicated not just in this movie but also in the real world. When
we are confronted with a question on how do we define justice, our brain would tell us that “Justice is
giving everyone his due” but is that really what justice is? The true definition of justice is more
complex, complicated and deeper than that phrase above. Each and everyone of us can come up with
our own version of justice because we are just merely humans, capable of biases and prejudices that
would affect our personal views. Thus, the movie clearly shows justice as something that is beyond
our reach. The justice that we can achieve is the justice of “reasonable doubt” as defined by our legal
system. This definition of justice is more realistic but less satisfying. Since we are mere humans,
capable of both fallibility and irrationality as evident in both the jurors and witness in the trial, this
type of justice allows us to make compromises. This movie showcase the possibility that there is no
room for any idea of objective truth in any definitions of justice where humans are involve.