Please note! This essay has been submitted by a student.
With every movie comes a story. In this one, we see a very long scene in which 12 men argue between each other to decide whether an eighteen years old boy is guilty or not for stabbing his father with a knife. It all started with a vote to see who states that the boy is guilty or not guilty. Eleven men voted guilty, but only one of them said not guilty, and this man had no reason to say not guilty however he did it because he believed that there wasn’t enough evidence to judge the boy guilty. The man wanted to talk before the court judgment to prove that the boy man not be eventually guilty.
In the man’s reasoning, he started to argue with the eleven other men to prove something new and to discover what really happened. Once he started talking, every other one of them was shouting guilty and having no reason to say not to. The man stated everything about the crime scene. He convinced the old man sitting next to him that the boy is not guilty, and ever since, everybody started to change their minds. When they became at least three people saying not guilty, everyone started questioning the other men whether it’s right or wrong.
The defending team started to give accurate evidence of time, distance, location, and witness’s when they were talking about the crime. Then the guilty one’s started changing their thoughts and became with the not guilty team. Many votes have taken place, in each one of them one or two people changed their state. When the first one started to asking questions about the crime, everyone else laughed at him, but it turned out that his reasoning counting the seconds of the train pass, the old man who walked for 15 seconds claiming he saw someone on the stairs, the woman who was juggling in bed for an hour and then saw through the light of the train someone raising a knife and killing the father, all of this was very well studied to prove that the timing and the place were not very accurate to say that boy really took out his father.
I believe that the men had a perspective, he didn’t want to judge the boy guilty when he was not sure that the boy killed his father. All of his thoughts were about the boy’s life. It was their decision that can make the boy die in prison or be free all his life. Afterwards, they talked about the kind of knife the killer used, it was unique and bought from a weapons store. The man took out of his pocket the same knife claiming by that it could be a coincidence and that the knife dropped out through a hole in the boy’s pants may be true.
Then they argued that the boy knew how to use knives because he was born somewhere (not sure if the word is “slumb”) where he used to defend himself. So, by saying that, they agreed that if the boy was the killer he would stabbed directly when the knife is opened not by raising his hand to a 45degree angle and stabbing the father from above. It’s one way to prove the dozens of evidence wrong. They also assured that the women who saw the boy had marks on her nose from wearing eyeglasses, they remarked that at the court.
In fact, how possibly can she see from a 60 feet distance at night without her glasses the same boy killing his father, she would probably saw blurry that night. It’s unreasonable to say that all the evidence proposed at the court was true. In my opinion, the old man and that women were seeking just attention at the court by lying to whatever was in their favor. In conclusion, this was just a movie, but the story behind it really meant something. We can all agree that one man can change many other’s opinion and it is by arguing and reasonable thinking that anyone can find a solution to anything in life. This long scene was based on arguing, screaming, changing minds, and proving people wrong. The 12 men were really angry, even the one who voted not guilty because they made him talk and stand for his lonely vote.