The Judiciary: 12 Angry Men (1957)

Deliberation is a long and careful consideration or discussion. It can be considered as the backbone of the United States judiciary system. Jurors meet and deliberate the fates of alleged criminals by conversing for extended periods of time. Of course facts are vital to the process of deliberation but sometimes the deliberators can sway outcomes with their own personal characteristics and backgrounds. What are some of the problems of deliberation, and just what consequences can these problems bring forth?
            In the 1957 film, 12 Angry Men, 12 jurors are brought together to deliberate and ultimately decide the fate of an 18 year old alleged murderer. A 12 to nothing rule is required to convict the boy and during the preliminary vote one juror chooses to vote not guilty. The remaining jurors are outraged; some of them stereotype the boy because of his criminal record, race, and socio-economic status. Other jurors are simply too timid to make a decision for themselves and some, just can’t wait to go home and watch that night’s “ball game”. The “lone juror” who wishes to reanalyze the case slowly, convinces the others one by one to side on the boy’s side. Of course he uses facts to bolster up his argument but the in way in which he sways them in some instances, can be alarming. Assuming the boy is guilty, which 11 of the jurors believed before the one juror’s activism, one man’s sensible argument could have allowed a murderer to run free. Assuming the boy is innocent; if it had not been for one brave and outspoken juror, the life of an innocent 18 year old boy would be extinguished. The risks are apparent.
            In the article, “Social Characteristics and Influences in the Jury Room”, by Erin York and Benjamin Cornwell (2006), they analyze behavior in the jury room in the 1950’s. Much like the presentation of the jury room in 12 Angry Men, women, blacks, and Hispanics were out of the picture. York and Cornwell also found that more educated individuals tend to control the process of deliberation more. In 12 Angry Men, the “lone juror” supporting the young boy sparked the conversation but much of it was dominated by prideful intellectuals and an emotionally unstable sociopath. The sentiment was that most of the jurors were racist and criticized the boy because he grew up in the slums. They had no mercy whatsoever. It seemed as if the one juror was the boy’s guardian angel, he wore white and he fought for justice.
            I mean the problems are clear, stuffing a bunch of racist, incompetent, white men in a room to play God is pretty crazy. But we can be thankful that times have changed and juries are more diverse and less racist. As discussed in the article, “Against Deliberation” by Lynn M. Sanders (1997), jurors must be equals, probably the exact opposite of what occurred in 12 Angry Men. Maybe in the future technology can allow for the anonymity of defendants. Maybe they can video tape them with blurred faces and distorted voices and project them on a screen in court. That would be a lot fairer and pretty cool and the jurors would be forced to be completely impartial.