The movie is about twelve jurors who are considering the destiny of a teenaged boy suspect of killing his father. There are the two observers who saw and heard the murder. It seems to be an open and closed case, and if the boy is imprisoned, he will be put to death. The jurors here the suggestion presented by the prosecutor and the boy 's submissive lawyer. As they enter the jury room, all but one is persuaded of his responsibility in a straw vote. There were several different characters at work; the task-oriented jury foreman, the gentle business man who finally finds his voice, the oppressor who was open about his bias, and juror number 8 who refused to vote guilty without considering all of the indication. An interesting social psychological existence was the eye-witness testimony. A woman who wore glasses appeared that she saw the murder. Jurors, however, misjudge the precision of eyewitnesses. People tend to remember what they imagine to see instead of what they really see. In the boy 's case, he had a history of loud influences with his father, so when the neighbor saw the father being wounded, she expected it to be his son. The first step in this process is that the case of the jury, they expected that the boy 's behavior was produced by something about him. The second step is to reflect the situation, but this …show more content…
Juror #10 categorizes all those people who live in the slums negatively. He says, "They don’t need any real big motive to kill someone, either. You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone’s lying in the drain most of them, it’s like they have no feelings". He accepts that all those kids who are born in such situations and who have been showing to strength from a small age, turn out to be infamous, and can murder anyone they want. This belief influences him completely that this kid had definitely killed his father. He uses this information to understand it in a way that approves his beliefs about teenage kids. This bias can be called