The film 12 Angry Guys is trying to shed light on the mistakes and spaces in the criminal justice system. The movie concentrates on 12 guys who all have various personalities that affect the case and the final decision. The movie touches on bigotry in the jury, grudges between families, and that the court could be “bought out”, but it does all of this in a fun and amusing way.
The first problem the film reveals is racism. In this movie the most popular racism originates from juror # 10. Right from the start of the film juror # 10 is attempting to see who is against him and who is with him. He states several times, “who stands where” which informs us that he is more of a despiteful person. When he is asked about why he thinks the kid he is sending out to pass away is guilty, he has one response every time. He mentions “he is among them,” which we interpret that the accused is not white and this is why he is voting guilty or mostly why. Later on in the film he begins to rage at all the other jurors about the boy being guilty, because again “he is one of them” and they are killers. The other jurors choose they had enough with him and just stroll from the table, which shows juror # 10 that he is the odd man out with his beliefs. This is one minute in the movie where it makes juror # 10 recognize that his viewpoints are jeopardizing the case. This shows us, the audience, how with simply one racist juror can dramatically impact the final result in a trail. If he didn’t alter his mind the result of the case might have been various.
Grudges are likewise a popular style in this film. This trait is most dominate in Juror # 3, who never ever actually has had any evidence of why the kid is guilty other than for the points that Juror # 4 has actually been discussing with the other jurors throughout the movie. Juror # 3 lightly informs us about his kid who ran away from home in the beginning of the movie, however it appears insignificant at the time. Towards the end of the movie juror # 3 goes off on a madman spree, screaming about how the young boy needs to be guilty. He then stops briefly and takes a look at his wallet where an image of his boy is and starts to sob. In the end he changes his vote from guilty to innocent. What we infer from this is that he was holding a grudge versus the offender since his son ran away, not due to the fact that the boy was guilty. He sees his boy in the accused and is taking it out on him. This scenario could take place the method other around. Envision juror # 3 (the one who had an animosity) had an animosity on his papa, then he would be more inclined to enact favor of the accused. These grudges could cost somebody their life if they are not tamed.
The quantity of money may be the biggest thing to affect the path. In the movie one repeating discussion is why the accused’s attorney did not bring a lot of key points up. This message surface areas a lot in the movie while the jurors are discussing the case. Their answer is because the lawyer did not care due to the fact that he was being paid so little. The jury speak to each other about how it was an unfair fight from the start, because the prosecution’s lawyer was totally engaged and the defendant’s was not. This shows us how much money can impact the outcome of any case no matter how huge or little. If the accused would have had more resources for his own lawyer, he might not of ever had the 11 to 1 vote guilty and juror # 8 wouldn’t have actually needed to be a “knight in shining armor.”