“12 Angry Men is a love letter to the American judicial system that equally points out the faults in the people that system protects and serves.”
.jpg)
Dawn of a New Era
Praised as a timeless masterpiece and must-watch, Sidney Lumet’s debut created a new film genre: courtroom dramas. In fact, many of the films I have previously written about on this blog can be traced back to 12 Angry Men. Instead of glamourising lawyers, objections and judge’s gavels, this film presents a glimpse behind closed doors of a jury room.
The panel of twelve jurors is tasked with deciding on the innocence or guilt of a young man who allegedly stabbed his father to death. Believing that this is an open-and-shut case, the foreman calls for a preliminary vote. Much to the dismay of the eleven other jurors, Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) refuses to raise his hand and vote guilty, not because he is convinced that the defendant is innocent but because he believes that the defendant is entitled to more time. After all, the defendant is facing a mandatory death sentence. Juror #8 advocates that you cannot and should not decide on someone else’s life or death in just five minutes. As the plot unravels, the 12 Angry Men become even angrier at being forced to discuss the facts of the case and to reconsider the evidence presented at trial.
Unreasonably Reasonable
At the very beginning of the film, we spend a split second in the courtroom when the judge gives his instructions to the jury. He summarises the charges. He explains that the verdict must be unanimous. He cautions that the defendant will die if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Most importantly, the judge emphasises that the jury must separate the “facts from the fancy”.
It is quite ironic and cynical that Juror #8 convinces the other eleven jurors to do the exact opposite. Instead of relying on testimony and evidence, they start making assumptions of all the possibilities that might have happened instead. However, it seems that the jury forgets that possible is not synonymous with probable, let alone reasonable. Is it possible that both of the witnesses lied or exaggerated in their testimony? Yes. Is it possible that the defendant forgot the name of the film he was watching and has an alibi? Yes. Is it possible that his father was killed with an identical knife to the one he had bought and conveniently lost that same day? Yes. It is possible that all of these things have happened, but it is highly improbable. The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, and assuming that all of the evidence is somehow erroneous is no longer reasonable.
Juror Misconduct
While the jury is indeed supposed to debate whether the prosecution has proved the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they are not supposed to redo the entire trial all over again. In addition to making up scenarios that could have happened, Juror #8 attempts to prove that one of the witnesses lied by pretending to be the witness and re-enacting a scene from his testimony. It is not permitted to conduct experiments regarding theories of the case outside of the actual trial. It is also not permitted to conduct your own research and bring information into the jury room which was not presented at trial. When reaching a verdict only evidence that was presented at trial should be considered. His intentions may have been noble but, knowing that he is committing juror misconduct, Juror #8 comes across as self-righteous when he proudly proclaims to have walked through the defendant’s neighbourhood the previous night. He then magically fetches an exact copy of the murder weapon out of his pocket, impressing the other jurors as the prosecution lead them to believe that the knife was very rare with an unusual carved handle and blade. However, if one of the jurors has an identical knife, it cannot be that rare and accordingly it must be possible that another person could have used the same knife to commit the murder.
Negotiation or Manipulation
The more impressionable and gullible members of the jury are swayed very easily, and the audience is tricked into rooting for Juror #8. On the one hand, the film disguises semantics, illogical fallacies, and other manipulative tactics as seemingly logical arguments with the actor’s charm. On the other hand, you are inclined to believe these arguments, especially if you are against the death penalty, because you want to find reasonable doubt and Juror #8 presents it to you on a silver platter.
After a while, it seems that the jury has reached an impasse as some of the jurors would not budge: Juror #3, Juror #4, Juror #7, and Juror #10. The obvious choice would be to declare a hung jury as the verdict has to be unanimous. In the United States, this means that all of the twelve jurors must agree whereas in the United Kingdom a majority vote of ten jurors would suffice. However, Juror #8 is relentlessly stubborn and cannot admit defeat, and Hollywood would not be Hollywood without the protagonist succeeding. Juror #10 reveals his underlying prejudices and motives in a racist rant, losing his credibility and the other’s respect. Juror #7 surrenders because he is tired and wants to go home. The other two jurors follow and change their vote to not guilty after being emotionally and mentally manipulated by Juror #8. This is truly remarkable, especially because he did not even believe himself that the defendant was innocent at the beginning of the film.
Final Thoughts
If you have read this article, you might find it surprising that 12 Angry Men is one of my favourite legal films. Even if it gets quite a few details wrong, as long as you watch the film with a grain of salt, it is still incredibly entertaining. The acting is superb, and the use of camera angles make this film a cinematic masterpiece despite its inaccuracies. 12 Angry Men remains relevant with its “nuanced and progressive attitude toward racism” as well as its message that one person can make a real difference by using their voice.
Comments