Before writing this essay, I casually asked a friend what her thoughts were regarding the jury system in our country. She laughed and replied, "It doesn’t work. Everybody knows it’s just a joke." Changing the subject, she asked: "So, what are we doing after dinner?" My friend’s conclusory statement bothered me. She obviously presumed that I embraced what she perceived as the majority view and that, therefore, the subject did not merit further discussion. I had just finished watching Twelve Angry Men and thus felt inspired to challenge what she hastily regarded as settled.

   At the outset, eleven jurors vote in favor of convicting the accused without even discussing a single shred of the evidence presented at trial. Only one brave juror refuses to vote. He openly admits that he does not know whether the accused is guilty or innocent and that he finds it necessary to simply talk about the case. What follows is not only a discussion of the particular facts of the case, but an intense examination of the personal baggage that each jury member brings to the room.

   The film also does a great job of not being overtly critical of the fact that some people merely follow their "gut" when it comes time to cast their vote. One particular juror in Twelve Angry Men votes in favor of convicting the accused. When challenged, however, he readily admits that he doesn’t know why he thinks that the accused is guilty. This man’s character is used as a vehicle to expose a serious flaw in the system. We see that sometimes jurors completely abandon reason. Many critics advance the rational argument that the power of a juror to decide one way or another for no apparent reason cannot possibly work to achieve justice. However, the film also exposes us to those jurors in the room who openly express their thoughts, ideas, and feelings about the case. This juxtaposition of characters in the jury room is ultimately consistent with the fact that the room should reflect the diverse community in which we live.

   Still, what happens when the jury doesn’t understand the legal definition of murder? In Twelve Angry Men we never see the jury review or discuss a single jury instruction. Instead, we see that the jury is motivated by the facts and their own sense of drama. Ultimately, they reach a consensus based on a combination of the facts and their own personal baggage. Thus, the film raises yet another thought-provoking question: Does the power of the jury to go its own way warrant abandoning the system altogether?

   After seeing Twelve Angry Men, my view is that, although the system is imperfect, justice can still be achieved. We breathe a sigh of relief when we see that one man is willing to challenge what eleven other jurors have regarded as settled at the outset. We see that the system works and think justice is achieved when this man’s uncertainty and reasonable doubt slowly but surely become every man’s uncertainty and reasonable doubt. In the final analysis, we all pull for that one courageous man who instigates the doubt in the room and opens the eyes of the blind to the truth. Thus, abandoning the system altogether is not the answer.