The process of deliberation depicted in this film was extremely difficult.  The characters in this film verbalized many of their biases against class, race, and age.  The irony was that it was these very negative comments that propelled some of the jurors to reconsider the evidence. The first once was Jack Klugman (Juror #5) who responded to reference of “slum kids” with a sense of shame and thoughtfulness.  Juror #5 then changed his vote to not guilty because of the availability of the “unique knife” and the way the crime was said to have been carried out.  When the immigrant Juror #11, responded to the notion of a hung jury and proclaimed the importance of civic duty, he was met with an angry rant from juror #3 who makes negative comments about immigrants.  Juror #10 then proceeds to give a racist speech “these people don’t need a reason to kill someone” and was promptly told to shut up by the stockbroker (Juror #4).  Finally, the elderly Juror #9 made the most compelling arguments for the defendant by punching holes in the testimony of the two witnesses. This fell in stark contrast to the comments made by juror number #3 who states that ” the witness, who was also an elderly gentlemen, didn’t know what he was talking about because of his age”.  The comments made by Juror #3 had the opposite effect that the one intended and his statement was met with incredulous stares from the other jurors. Furthermore, Juror #3 was assaulted by his own son who walked out of his life.  This probably explains why Juror #3 was the last to be swayed and was in tears as he voted innocent.

I loved the fact these characters had to overcome their own biases to come to a decision that was fair.  Based on the evidence and the statements there was significant reasonable doubt.

I believe that all people have some form of bias that effects their decisions and may cause people to predetermine outcomes before considering the facts.