Twelve juries, for a teenager accused of murdering his father, who was born in a slum, his parents had never cared about his growth, usually had a bad relationship with his father, and entered the final vote on whether he was guilty or not.
Eleven juries considered this to be an undoubted murder, and all voted guilty. Only one architect believed that the case was suspicious and questioned the witness's vowed testimony. At first, he used one enemy and eleven, and gradually one two three waits for the jury to think that the case was indeed suspicious. When other juries hostile and attacked the suspect’s background and experience, the architect still believed in his own judgment and said that he had walked around the slum where the suspect lived and easily bought a similar exhibit—a knife. However, some of the juries were reluctant and vented all their prejudices and discrimination on the suspect.
Throughout the film, the architect is in awe of life and is responsible for his duties. He emphasizes that he does not know the truth, but he has doubts about the people and things he sees, and some of them cannot withstand careful scrutiny. Therefore, everyone needs to discuss each other. Kind of possibility. He and several of the jury's discussions on human nature and human psychology are worth thinking about. It is also lamentable that a sound judicial system is a major contribution to the advancement of human civilization, and it also guarantees the right to speak for most people.
View more about 12 Angry Men reviews
