Home > Twelve Angry Men Summary & Study Guide > Twelve Angry Men Group > Discussion Board

Do you think it's realistic to expect twelve people to agree on any vertict? Why or why not?

Yes, I do think that twelve people, if properly sequestered, can reach a unanimous verdict in the United States. We are taught in school about the principles of democracy and civics, and those who show up for jury duty, I believe, take their responsibility very seriously.

Coming to consensus on a jury verdict is not simply a matter of opinion; jurors are expected to apply the law to the facts. There is truly not a lot of room for opinion in doing this.

The jury system has worked since the days of ancient Rome. I think it will continue to be successful.

I also think it is realistic, as long as the jurors adhere to the pledge they make to judge the case solely on the evidence presented, and the evidence is strong.

No I don't. While the jury process as a whole is very serious and people take the role of a juror very seriously, the fact that we all have different perspectives, come from different background, and have different expectations of things, it is hard to imagine that 12 people can come to the same conclusion while looking at the same evidence.

The US Supreme Court usually doesn't have unanimous decisions in most cases, how can you expect 12 average citizens to?

And thinking back about the recent elections, we are such a divided and polarized nation of almost 50/50, I also don't see how you can take 12 people out of that normal spectrum and ask them to come to the same conclusion.

The distinction between an appeals court, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, and a jury is that judges interpret and construe the spirit of the law, while juries apply the letter of the law under the guidance of a judge. The legal system has established the bifurcated processes of the judge and the jury in order to allow these two related but very different applications to be exercised.  

As it is illustrated in the story Twelve Angry Men, the approach adopted by someone to convince the group has important influence of degree of consensus reached. Of course, this is subject the condition that sufficient information for convincing is available, although it may not be so apparent initially.

In reply to #5:

I have been on 3 juries in the State of Rhode Island, and not one time did we ever come up with a consensus vote.  Even when I was foreman on one of them.  The difference between movies and real life is that real life is never never as glamorous. Jurors and alternates told me time after time that they did not understand any of the case and it was too difficult for them to come to any conclusion. Since the statute of limitations on my service has ended at least 15 years ago, the cases were 2 hung juries at 5-5 and dismissed and the other was 6-4 in favor of defendant.

It was a typical jury that some fell asleep during deliberations and 3 voted just to get out early. Though I was the only one to have gone to law school, the process of deciding anything with 12 people is unduly stressful and almost not realistic to assume that we could have come to any unanimous decision.

If you look over appeals court cases, and Supreme court cases you can see which cases the justices understood and which ones they didn't. Law school clerks write most of the legal opinions like I did for the judge that I clerked for because many cases were too technical for him.

It's almost an idealistic view that it can work, but still something to hope for. 

I have never been on a jury, but just from debating with people both in and out of the classroom, I find it hard to believe that twelve randomly chosen jurors will immediately agree on anything.  Just like the play, people must be attentive to details, want to do the right thing (and not just vote "guilty" because they have concert tickets), and work to understand the case in order to determine reasonable doubt.  Unfortunately, not everyone in our society has the same dedication to serving others as they would want to be served, nor do ethics ring true in every realm of the world. 

My belief is that it would be extremely difficult to get twelve people to agree...and if they do come to a unanimous decision, it would not be without Herculean effort.

Bear in mind that the role of a jury is to determine what the facts were, based on the evidence.  It is a strength of the system, I believe, that the jury will consist of people with a range of experiences and perspectives.  I also feel that most people try to do a good job as jurors.

On the other hand, I think it is unreasonable to expect an average jury (of 12 or fewer) to follow all the evidence in extremely complex cases.  Although there would be pitfalls to the use of expert panels, I believe this would be appropriate in some circumstances for the more complex aspects of a case.

I  believe those who are chosen to sit on a jury that Requires a unanimous twelve jury decision such as death penalty cases, ultimately take their responsibility seriously. However, as a realistic person I recognize that the system is not without flaws. For example, although jurors are required to render their decisions based upon the law some simply will not be able to escape their own bias regardless of where it has originated. Having said that, I remain opitmistic and have faith in our judicial system because 'A jury of your peers' is one of those precious Constitutional principles that must never be taken for granted.