12 Angry Men is a 1954 play by Reginald Rose that later become a cinematic success in 1957. Both pieces depict a darker and more unpleasant side of the role given to jurors in the criminal court system.

The setting of 12 Angry Men takes place in a hot courtroom in bad weather with 12 jurors given the task to unanimously vote either “guilty” or “not guilty” of a case of a 19 year old boy who is charged for allegedly stabbing his father, killing him. Inside the courtroom, eleven jurors instantly vote guilty except the 8th juror which frustrates most of the others causing a long debate whether the boy is guilty or not. Multiple jurors initially show disdain to the thought of the child’s innocence along with Juror 8’s ‘not guilty’ verdict. For instance, Juror 3 through pure personal bias and anger through most of the book/film. Other jurors show no concern for the court and want to leave as fast as possible. For example, juror 7 has tickets to a baseball game that he is more interested in attending than his jury. It’s tough at first but Juror 8 slowly starts winning other jurors over, convincing them to vote ‘not guilty’ through showing resilience, having an open mind, and giving logical reasoning for reasonable doubt against opposing arguments. In the end, despite the various adversities such as being outnumbered from the start, ridiculed, fighting other’s personal prejudices, and a final stand off between juror 3, all jurors unanimously conclude the verdict: ‘not guilty’.

The play displays the role that jurors have in a criminal case: unanimously vote guilty or not guilty. But in a more cruel manner. Jurors are encouraged to be unbiased and fair. However 12 Angry Men shows in reality it’s not always the case as individuals will let their bias intertwine with the law, causing turmoil to spill over legally, straying away from the reason why we have a democratic legal system in place. Where there is prejudice, there is injustice.