Who is the Defendant in the Trial of Twelve Angry Men?

In a murder trial in which a young man is accused of the death of his father in rather strange circumstances, it is here that 12 members of a jury take the responsibility of deciding whether or not the young man is guilty of said murder and based on reasons, they must decide their guilt. The evidence and the witnesses in principle was only one of them doubt about the certainty of guilt, the other juries think that the young man is guilty and one of the jurors that is an older person says that the young man should be taken to the electric chair. We know that it is not easy to decide for the death of someone, many of the members are under pressure to have strong reasons to accept or raise new reasons to consider forceful the sentence that should be given to the young person, in addition to this pressure they are gathered in an environment It increases the tensions and this affects psychologically several of them, and according to my analysis, a constant in several of them is that they get carried away by feelings or past experiences to provide a position, which is not acceptable. The first jury that is in favor of innocence considers that a better communication between them is necessary, and seeing how the life of the young accused was, he tells others that he can not judge the young person for his life when he was little or where he was born.

According to the witnesses who mentioned that they saw the young man murder his father, which at first glance is surprising for many of them, the first reason why the young man should not be considered guilty is to see the young person's supposed motivation to do so. Killing his own father, what could, perhaps, perhaps he wanted to do it because he was angry, the young man who grew up in a family full of problems and abuse and that his father had beaten him since he was five years old. But one of the juries that argues that, despite having grown up in an environment similar to that of the accused, tries to make others come into reason. Bearing in mind that despite the fact that the jury was present during the trial process and that it gives us to understand that it was for a long time, what convinced many of the guilty parties, put in doubt the lawyers, the evidence and the witnesses, which is a key piece to solve the problem and the first test analyzes the use of the weapon with which the father died, that by its appearance is a special knife and where the young man also affirms that he went to the cinema while the murder occurred and / or not to lie, which is not enough reason to blame, and that being a special knife is not easy to achieve, but this last reason is eliminated when the jury that, according to him, also lived in the same conditions as the young man.

These are the reasons that motivate a second vote and where surprisingly increases the number of juries who are in favor of the innocence of young people. One of the jurors makes the other jurors understand that not only can they say they will only believe the witnesses because they also have to see everything that was around the crime scene. He does not consider that the murder was committed for any reason. This is where the first witness who saw the murder through a train in motion rises, which in North America is usually at the level of the houses and passing at all hours. it is here that the witness said that she saw the father murdered at the hands of the young man, and this curiously through the train that passed through the window at high speed, which some consider sufficient proof to blame him; but it is the indirect way in which the witness saw death, which calls into question the certainty of his words; In addition to this, the other witness who saw the murdered youth, but also questioned, and who does is the jury (the older man), in my opinion, is the jury that has more clarity of thought; What changes the opinion of more members of the jury in a next vote where there are already eight members of the jury who are in favor of innocence, where the last member who changes his position raises a ""reasonable doubt"".

In addition, the man had a problem in the leg which prevented him from moving with fluidity; he convinced himself of the clarity of his words and, although he may not be so, the witness believes that he has truth; This is understood by the member of the jury who questions these witness statements; and to give more strength to this hypothesis, some members of the jury make a simulation of what could have happened at the crime scene if the pope had wanted to go out the door and all the work he was going to have to do to get out. They take statements from the witness who says he took 15 seconds to get from where he was to the window from where he saw the murder, and valid from a plan of the house; they showed that it was impossible for the witness with that problem in the leg to have reached the window in 15 seconds, but rather 45 seconds, which gives a second reason for not considering the statement of ""the old man"" true; which gave one more reason to believe that the old man created in his mind that he saw a murder; it is here that the juror who defends the guilt of the young person is carried away by those feelings and not for compelling reasons that are necessary to make a decision in a just decision. It is here that all these reasons put 6 and 6 votes in favor and against.

Each of the characters with their different personalities and social influences give their opinion or tend to judge their experiences in life and we can see that some of the juries begin the trial passively and while they are discussing the issue they are bothering and They start to argue with each other. In terms of attitudes, personalities and how to show how people act without use of reason most of the time, how they are influenced by society, ideals, and how the use of absolutes is always preferable to the doubt. As it says in the book on the ethics of care ""What I feel is right is right, what I feel is wrong is wrong"" (Rousseau, as cited by Ruggiero, 2001: 28).

In this movie we can see how each jury gives their opinion about the murder case. Some of the juries are upset with the young man because they have had similar experiences to him but we can also see how some of the jurors understand everything that this young man has lived for 19 years. One of the juries that always said that he could not notice that the decision he was taking was not adequate so he felt the tension and harassment of the other juries. Neither were the reasons, but rather prejudices, and that it was a family problem that he had in the past, the reason for which he accused the young man without foundation, for which he realized his mistake and was the reason why he did not continue holding the accusation.

Cite this page