12 Angry Men and the Law

What does 12 Angry Men truthfully have to say about the justice system and human nature? I believe that the concept of 12 Angry Men is, ultimately, at its heart, an idealized, or maybe an example, of a jury that does its job fully and ideally the way it's supposed to be done. In an ideal jury debate a cross-section of people are gathered who thoroughly analyze the evidence and then arrive at an actual verdict. They realize the true nature of the crime. Now, in 12 Angry Men, I don't know if idealized is the best word, but it is definitely a well-run jury, a jury that does what a jury is meant to do.

The play has a lot to say about the human condition, with one of the main themes being that part of the human condition is the concept of one person against all sorts of others. Eight is the lone voice, and I do wonder think that 12 Angry Men is partly about the concept of mob mentality, or about group think. It is about group think in a lot of ways in that it explores how there were many people who progressively got revealed who had problems with what the case was, but they simply all agreed to vote guilty for various reasons relating to who they were, or to their situations in life, or their prejudices in life. They all originally voted guilty except for Eight because they wanted to achieve the point of what they were there to achieve, to come to a conclusion, but mostly they at the beginning just did not want to be bothered. It takes a person who is willing to be bothered, who is willing to force this issue, who will really make a difference. I think that is both the concept of the human condition and the legal system.

What does 12 Angry Men truthfully have to say about the justice system and human nature? I believe that the concept of 12 Angry Men is, ultimately, at its heart, an idealized, or maybe an example, of a jury that does its job fully and ideally the way it's supposed to be done. In an ideal jury debate a cross-section of people are gathered who thoroughly analyze the evidence and then arrive at an actual verdict. They realize the true nature of the crime. Now, in 12 Angry Men, I don't know if idealized is the best word, but it is definitely a well-run jury, a jury that does what a jury is meant to do.

The play has a lot to say about the human condition, with one of the main themes being that part of the human condition is the concept of one person against all sorts of others. Eight is the lone voice, and I do wonder think that 12 Angry Men is partly about the concept of mob mentality, or about group think. It is about group think in a lot of ways in that it explores how there were many people who progressively got revealed who had problems with what the case was, but they simply all agreed to vote guilty for various reasons relating to who they were, or to their situations in life, or their prejudices in life. They all originally voted guilty except for Eight because they wanted to achieve the point of what they were there to achieve, to come to a conclusion, but mostly they at the beginning just did not want to be bothered. It takes a person who is willing to be bothered, who is willing to force this issue, who will really make a difference. I think that is both the concept of the human condition and the legal system.