What makes me curious is that this kind of jury system brings together people of various occupations, backgrounds, and personalities in the society and needs them to hear them, and then the opinions of 12 of them must be completely unanimous before the trial can be done. decision. The 12 people didn't know each other at all, and didn't even know each other's names after the trial decision was made. Is this fair or unfair?
Some of these people have no mind at all about the trial, thinking about their own work, their own entertainment, and just wanting to quickly obey everyone's ideas and make a decision to end this matter and return to their own lives. There are also very serious people who will listen to the trial carefully. A person who takes careful notes and is responsible for the accused.
I think this is the wisdom of finding a jury at random. It blocks the probability of a serious and persistent person in the pair. Even if there is only one, it will affect the outcome of the entire trial.
12 big men in suits were locked in a small room on a sultry afternoon to vote for a resolution. From 11 people were found guilty, one person was found not guilty to 12 people were all commuted to not guilty. These few hours logically reveal the transformation process of human nature, from worldliness, cruelty, selfishness, numbness, stubbornness, conformity, to contradiction, suspicion, weakness, and finally to the victory of justice.
It was really fun to watch, and I felt really tired after watching it.
View more about 12 Angry Men reviews
