Twelve Angry Men reminds citizens of their inherent responsibilities to understand each other honestly so that American democracy functions effectively and fairly. The film features a twelve-man jury who must reach a unanimous decision in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old man from a slum. Every juror truly wants the verdict to be legitimate, but everyone views justice differently due to their desires, passions, and backgrounds. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Throughout the film, many jurors express bias and do not fully consider their duty. One juror, who also grew up in the slums, becomes defensive because of the existing stigma that anyone who grew up in the slums is a thief or murderer. Another juror has tickets to a baseball game and wants to make a decision before the game starts. The film questions whether people are actually capable of objectively deciding the truth. When an individual is more invested in their personal desires than in the integrity of the system as a whole, honest and impartial deliberation is inconceivable. Jack Warden, one of the jurors, wants to reach a verdict quickly in order to attend a baseball game. game. At first, he firmly recognizes that the young man is guilty but changes his vote when the other jurors change theirs. The manager says, “Do me a favor. Wake me up when it's over. . . I'm already a little fed up with all this. We're not getting anywhere fast. Let's break this off and go home. I change my vote to not guilty. “His immediate change of opinion demonstrates his lack of concern to deliberate on a truly honest and accurate decision. The film highlights the challenges of democracy which needs honorable people to function. George Voskovec, another juror, embodies the American values ​​that most citizens hope are present in the justice system. The only foreigner in the group of jurors, Voskoevec seems to appreciate the democratic process exponentially more than the others. He reminds the jurors: “We have a responsibility. This is a remarkable thing in our democracy. . . We are informed by mail to come to the location and decide the guilt or innocence of a man we have not previously known. We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. Voskoevec's deep admiration for American democracy leads him to have immense confidence and optimism in the intentions of his fellow jurors, which turns out to be wrong. Despite his enthusiasm for the democratic process, he begins to realize that many of the other jurors feel the opposite. Jurors like Jack Warden take their freedom and responsibility for granted, but an immigrant like Voskoevec understands the harmful effects of a system lacking these attributes. His anger is entirely justified and reminds us that any democratic process is essential. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay In addition to desire and passion, resulting in heavily biased deliberations, juror Jack Klugman points to the influence of past experiences when making this decision. Klugman becomes increasingly defensive when the reasoning for the young man's guilt is that he was raised in the slums. Being from the slums himself, he does not appreciate the..