I believe that the movie shows how bias distorts fact and makes wrong decision. In particular, I was able to come up with how stakeholders might misuse their power and influence on a given matter.
A Chechen boy accused of murdering his stepfather was facing the death penalty, and the film shows us the progress of the jury of twelve ‘angry men’ decided the fate of him. Under the condition that the drama does not clearly tell whether the teenager is actually guilty or not, the core argument is about judgment of whether this boy is guilty or not which could punish him to death. Eleven jurors, a majority of them, voted ‘guilty’ based on biased views such as underprivileged kids might not hesitate to kill someone. Only one jury, however, initially votes ‘not guilty’. The interesting point here is that the core arguments over the judgment changed from ‘he is guilty’ to ‘he is not guilty’.
