12 Angry Men: A Study in Judging
John C. Carroll
Williams Jessup University/ Wilson University
12 Angry Men: A Study in Judging
Introduction
The purpose of this assignment is to convince you why you should engage with a favorite creative work. The chosen creative work is a classic film—12 Angry Men. I will examine the way we as humans allow our biases to cause us to judge others. Since how we judge others affects everyone, everyone should watch this epic presentation of human prejudices. In seeing this story unfold, we may come to see ourselves and our bigotry. It may be easier to admit that we have these tendencies when a film points them out rather than a friend or foe.
Case Deconstruction
Shortly after everyone arrived in the courtroom, the jurors took a public vote to see where everyone stood on the verdict. The first vote was 11-1 in favor of conviction. Juror #8 (Lemmon 1997) was the lone dissenter. The tension escalated immediately. The other jurors demonstrated a combination of irritation, condescension, and anger.
Because of the limitations of length, this paper must be selective in the examples that it uses. Therefore, it will profile a few of the key characters to show how we are often like them when we judge others. 12 Angry Men shows a range of human nature in its jurors. One of the noble things about the jurors is that none of them allowed their biases or motives to prevent the jury from reaching a unanimous and accurate decision.
All of the jurors were powerful in their way. But a few were outstanding to me. Some were extraordinary examples of good, and others were equal examples of bad. Juror #8, which is the central character in the cast, is the best of humanity. He did not have a bias either for or against the accused. He simply did not want to sentence a man to death without being as certain as possible of his guilt. Operating from his moral core, he took on an entire jury room to pursue justice. He was unphased by the criticism. We all want to think that we are juror #8 when we are judging others. The reality is that we rarely are that honest in how we judge others.
Juror #10 is the worst of humanity represented in this film. He was a racist. He wanted the kid to be guilty simply because he was Puerto Rican. He hated their kind. Towards the climax of the case, juror #8 asked, “#10, do you think he’s guilty?” (Donnelly and Friedkin, 1997). Juror #10 responded, “Yes, I think he’s guilty. But I couldn’t care less. You smart bastards, you do whatever you want” (Donnelly and Friedkin, 1997). Juror #8 then asked, “How do you vote?” (Donnelly and Friedkin, 1997). Juror #10 said, “I vote, not guilty” (Donnelly and Friedkin, 1997). Even juror #3, who was the last holdout, agreed that juror #10 was the “worst son of a” (Donnelly and Friedkin, 1997). Of course, #3 had his vendetta motivating his opinion against #10.
#10 had no moral core; he only had a racist agenda. And when he saw his agenda was defeated, he surrendered. This person can never be a trusted ally. They are only with you so long as your cause benefits them. Like in the case, #10 only voted with #8 because he knew that his racism disgusted the rest of the room. #3 found out that a #10 kind of person will abandon you, even if they agree with you if your mutual battle can no longer be won.
We all know this person, whether in a past or the present situation. That person has judged you in your church, in your school, or on your job. They didn’t like you because of a characteristic beyond your control. And when they got the opportunity to convict you, they tried. The primary lesson to learn from this kind of person is not to be them. When we get the chance to judge others, we must overcome our prejudices against them. Better yet, we should eliminate the prejudices in our hearts before we have the opportunity to judge anyone.
Juror #3 started by saying, “Okay, here’s what I think. And I have no personal feelings at all. I’m talking facts” (Donnelly and Friedkin, 1997). As the production progressed, it became evident that the exact opposite was true. Personal feelings were the sole motivator in his desire to see a guilty verdict. He saw the victim as his son who would have nothing to do with him. And the facts were details he wanted to manipulate to convict his son vicariously through a stranger.
Juror #3 is the classic case of protesting too much. Call me cynical, but I am always skeptical when people attempt to convince me of their absolute integrity and virtue in a matter. I have seen it turn out the opposite in almost every case. When people are acting with integrity toward you, their actions will do the talking. Maybe I am just a pot calling kettles black.
Juror #7 was just annoyed by the whole process. The most important thing on his mind was getting to the Yankees game. And he would vote whatever way that would make that happen the quickest. He cared more about his comfort and convenience than whether or not an innocent person may get the death penalty. He was self-absorbed. Truth, justice, and the value of human life were inconveniences to his entertainment.
We all know the person that thinks everything in the world should revolve around them. They do not care what happens to anyone else as long as their life goes as planned. The smallest thing in their life is more important than the biggest thing is your life. Perhaps the truth is that we all know that person from the mirror.
Why You Should Watch It?
This section will present three reasons why people should watch 12 Angry Men. The first argument is one that will appeal only to religious people. However, arguments two and three should appeal to everyone. After finishing this paper, a person who has social awareness will be interested in watching this movie.
It Portrays a Biblical Principle
Judging in a legal manner is a theological thread that runs throughout the Scriptures (Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16). God’s assembly—both in the Old and New Testaments—have been people of judgment (1 Corinthians 6:1-7). There was an office of judges in Israel (Acts 13:20). The book of Judges is in the Old Testament. Therefore, judgment, guilt, and innocence are central to a convent community.
While the system of justice portrayed in 12 Angry Men is not the same as that in Scripture, the principle of desiring just outcomes and not letting personal agendas cloud our judgment is shared.
We Have All Been Judged
Everyone should watch this film because we have all been judged by others. We need to understand that when people misjudge us that it is usually about something broken in them. We also need to know that even though the evidence at times may make us look guilty, that there are people in the world that are willing to defend us regardless of the pressure that others place on them. Not everyone is out to get us. And even if they think we are guilty in the beginning, they are honest enough to change their minds when presented with a proper presentation of the facts.
We Will All Judge Someone
Lastly, everyone should watch this film because we will all have the opportunity to hold someone’s future in our hands. It may be in a church, work, or family setting, but we will all have the opportunity to judge someone. Use 12 Angry Men as an example of the kind of juror you will be. Do not be a #3, a #7, or a #10; be a #8. We should be the kind of person that will judge others the way that we would want others to judge us.
We must require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt before you decide someone is guilty. As in the case of the accused, their very life could depend on it. Maybe not their physical life, but an accusation can take a person’s career, family, and reputation from them. And to do that to someone, we must be confident they deserve it.
Summary
Everyone should watch this movie as a matter of self-reflection. What kind of people do we want to be as a society, a community, or a church? We will be those who defend our fellows, even when they may be a stranger to us. We will be those who will defend others, even when our personal biases would prefer a different outcome. Together, let us judge fairly.
Reference
Donnelly, T. A. (Producer), & Friedkin, W. (Director). (1997). 12 angry men. [Motion picture]. USA: MGM Television
