'Guilty In 12 Angry Men'

People can be dangerous, show a poor attitude but, people don’t know their own personal feeling. People can make mistake and make guilty for something they never did. In purpose, it is a crash course in those passage of the Constitution that promise defends a fair trial and the presumption of innocent. We hear neither prosecutor nor defense attorney, and learn of the evidence only second hand, as the jurors debate it. Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear cut direct. But “12 Angry Men”, never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty.

A 12 man jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first – degree murder trial of an 18 years old man accused in the stabling death of his, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The difficulties encountered in the process, among a group of men whose range of personalities adds intensity and conflict. It is immediately apparent that the jurors have already decided that the boy is guilty and they plan to return their verdict without talking and discussion. In contrast, juror Henry Fonda who is the only not guilty vote in a preliminary tally. His vote annoys the other jurors, specially juror Jack Warden who has to see a baseball game that evening, just did not mind about the future of the kid. And juror Ed Begley who believes that people from slum backgrounds are liars, wild and dangerous.

This is a film where tension comes from personality conflict, dialogue, and where the defendants has been glimpsed only in a single brief shit, where logic, emotion and prejudice struggle to control the