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

As an attorney, who has never served on a jury, I can only speculate as to the dynamics when a jury must make a decision.  But what you might want to consider, as you address this question, is whether anyone has managed to come up with a better system.  If we were to allow judges or other kinds of experts to decide cases, each of those people would bring his or her own experiences and biases to the decision, too.  A jury of twelve can provide at least some balance to a decision.  Each acts as a counteracting force upon the experiences and biases of the other jurors. 

The issue of one's experiences and biases is being discussed right now, as the Senate considers Sotomayor as a candidate for the United States Supreme Court.  She has publicly stated that her experiences and status as a Latina inform her decisions, a statement that has been criticized in recent days.  However, every judge brings his or her own experiences and status to the courtroom, and if a defendant is unable to opt for a jury to act as a balance for decision-making, we would probably get worse justice, not better justice.

The question needs a bit more detail -- if you're talking about a civil case, at least in MA it's not necessary for a unanimous verdict; criminal cases, however, require complete agreement. Are other states the same?

An abundance of evidence, a well-organized case, a convincing argument, enough documentation to back up any cause for a motif, correlating alibis, and finding genuine witnesses all contribute to a well-informed decision, and not just a judgement based on opinion. Definately, with all the right elements a unanimous decision can be reached.

I can't speak of other cultures, but in this country, it's hard to find twelve Americans who can agree on much of anything! (One of our strengths, I think.) The jury system is designed as it is because it does recognize that twelve independent jurors will not fall into lockstep; therefore, compelling evidence will be required to bring them to a shared verdict. This is as it should be. In lesser crimes, a jury does not have to reach a unanimous verdict, but in a capital case, a unanimous verdict is required. This, also, is as it should be. To convict someone of a capital crime, the evidence must be so compelling that all twelve jurors are convinced--and that sets the bar very high for the prosecution. This is a reflection of the basic American belief in the rights of each citizen in relation to his government. So, is it unrealistic to expect twelve people to agree on a verdict? No, but it is unrealistic to expect twelve people to agree on a verdict if the evidence is not strong enough to bridge the distances between their individual personalities and life experiences. That is the principle. As in every other aspect, American society works when we live up to our democratic principles, and it falls short when we don't.