"12 ANGRY MEN—1957 AMERICAN COURTROOM LEGAL DRAMA FILM"

12 Angry Men is a powerful story about twelve ordinary men who are given a very serious responsibility. The story takes place in New York City on a very hot summer day. The trial of a young boy has just ended. The boy is eighteen years old. He comes from a poor neighborhood. People describe him as a slum kid. He is accused of killing his own father. The father was said to be violent and abusive. The boy says he did not do it.

The judge speaks to the twelve men who make up the jury. He tells them that their duty is very important. They must decide if the boy is guilty or not guilty. If they believe he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, he will be sentenced to death in the electric chair. If they have reasonable doubt, they must say he is not guilty. The judge explains that their decision must be unanimous. All twelve must agree on the same verdict.

The twelve men are then taken into a small jury room to discuss the case. The room feels uncomfortable because it is extremely hot. There is tension in the air. Some of the men want to finish quickly and go home. They believe the case is simple and clear. They feel the boy is obviously guilty.

Before they begin discussing deeply, they decide to take a quick vote. Eleven men raise their hands and say the boy is guilty. Only one man votes not guilty. This man is known as Juror 8. He is calm and thoughtful. He does not say that he is sure the boy is innocent. He simply says that he is not convinced of the boy’s guilt. He believes they should talk about the case before sending a young man to his death.

The other jurors are surprised and even angry. They think he is wasting time. Juror 3 is especially aggressive. He is loud and quick to anger. He insists the boy is guilty. Juror 7 is impatient because he has tickets to a baseball game and wants the discussion to end quickly. Juror 10 shows prejudice and speaks badly about people from poor neighborhoods. Juror 4 is calm and logical, but he believes the evidence clearly proves guilt. Juror 9 is the oldest man in the room. He watches quietly at first.

The evidence against the boy seems strong. One witness, a woman who lives across from the boy’s apartment, testified that she saw the boy stab his father. She said she was lying in her bed and looked out her window. A train was passing by, but she claimed she saw the killing through the train windows.

Another witness, an old man who lives downstairs, testified that he heard the boy shout that he would kill his father. He then heard a loud noise, like a body falling. He said he went to his door and saw the boy running down the stairs. The boy had also bought a switchblade knife earlier that day. The knife found at the crime scene looked exactly like the one he bought. The knife at the scene had no fingerprints.

Because of this evidence, most jurors believe the case is clear. But Juror 8 asks questions. He wonders if everything is really so certain. He says that a person’s life is at stake, and they should at least discuss it.

At first, the others argue strongly against him. They say there is no doubt. They say the boy had a history of trouble. They say he had fights with his father. They say he came from a bad background.

Juror 8 calmly takes out a knife from his pocket. The other men are shocked. It is a knife exactly like the one used in the murder. He explains that he bought it in a shop near the boy’s neighborhood. This shows that the knife is not unique, even though the prosecution said it was very rare. This creates the first small crack in the case.

Even so, most jurors are still not convinced. Juror 8 then suggests a secret vote. He says he will not vote. If all the others still vote guilty, he will agree with them and the verdict will be guilty. They agree to this. They vote by secret ballot. When the votes are counted, one vote is not guilty. Juror 8 smiles slightly. Someone else now has doubt.

The person who changed his vote is Juror 9, the old man. He says he respects Juror 8’s courage to stand alone. He believes they should talk more.

Now the discussion becomes deeper. They talk about the old man who heard the threat and saw the boy running down the stairs. Juror 8 points out that a train was passing by at the time. The noise of the train would have been very loud. Could the old man really have heard the boy clearly over that noise?

They begin to think about it carefully. They talk about the time it would have taken for the old man to get from his bed to his door. The old man walks with difficulty and uses a cane. Juror 8 measures the distance in the jury room and counts the seconds. They realize it would have taken longer than the old man claimed. This suggests that his testimony might not be accurate.

Juror 3 becomes very angry during the discussion. At one point, he shouts at Juror 8 and says he will kill him. Suddenly, there is silence. Everyone looks at Juror 3. They realize he did not mean it literally. He was just angry. This makes them think about the boy’s threat to his father. Maybe when the boy said he would kill him, it was also said in anger, not as a real plan.

Slowly, more jurors begin to change their votes. The numbers become closer. The room becomes tense. The heat adds to their frustration.

They then discuss the angle of the stab wound. The wound went downward into the father’s chest. Juror 5, who grew up in a poor neighborhood and has seen knife fights, explains that switchblades are usually used in an upward motion. He demonstrates how they are commonly held and used. He says it would be strange for a shorter boy to stab downward into a taller man’s chest. This seems unlikely.

After another vote, nine jurors now say not guilty. Only three still say guilty. Juror 10 becomes angry and starts speaking badly about people from slums. He says they are all liars and criminals. As he continues his hateful speech, one by one the other jurors turn away from him. They move to the other side of the room. They show that they do not agree with his prejudice. Finally, he stops speaking. He realizes he is alone.

Now they focus on the woman who claimed she saw the murder. Juror 4 strongly believes her testimony. He says she had no reason to lie. He says she was clear and confident.

As they talk, Juror 4 removes his glasses and rubs his nose where the glasses had pressed. Juror 9 suddenly remembers that the woman witness also had marks on her nose. He observed her rubbing them during the trial. That means she normally wears glasses.

But she said she was lying in bed, trying to sleep. It is unlikely she would have been wearing glasses in bed. If she was not wearing her glasses, could she really have seen the boy clearly from across the street, through a moving train?

This creates serious doubt. The jurors begin to realize that her testimony may not be reliable. One by one, they change their votes. Now only Juror 3 still says guilty.

Juror 3 is very emotional. Throughout the discussion, he has shown strong anger toward the boy. It becomes clear that he has problems with his own son. He tells a story about how his son disappointed him and became distant. He feels hurt and betrayed. His anger toward his son seems to influence his judgment about the boy on trial.

In the end, Juror 3 stands alone. The other eleven say not guilty. He looks around the room. He tries to argue, but his voice becomes weak. He takes out a photograph of himself and his son. In anger and sadness, he tears it up. He breaks down and cries. Finally, he changes his vote to not guilty.

The decision is now unanimous. The boy is declared not guilty. The twelve men leave the jury room. They have fulfilled their duty. Juror 8 gently helps Juror 3 with his jacket, showing kindness and understanding.

Outside the courthouse, Juror 8 and Juror 9 pause for a moment. They exchange their names quietly. Then they go their separate ways.

The story shows how justice depends on careful thinking and courage. It shows that prejudice and anger can cloud judgment. It teaches that one person’s willingness to speak up can change everything. Through patient discussion and honest reflection, the jurors move from quick judgment to reasonable doubt.

In the end, the film reminds us that the justice system depends on ordinary people who are willing to listen, question, and think carefully before making life-and-death decisions.

*********************