go because they had a reasonable doubt about his guilt. Eight years later, the truth came out that the man was indeed guilty; however, he couldn't be retried because of laws protecting citizens from double jeopardy. The implication is clear: juries get it wrong sometimes, causing guilty criminals to escape unpunished.

As the jurors deliberate on their own case, it becomes clear that jurors face many pitfalls. Since a unanimous verdict was required, any single incompetent or recalcitrant juror could produce a hung jury, which would result in a mistrial and require the whole case to be presented again to a second jury. This would be a large waste of court time and taxpayer money.

Some ways that the jurors in the play reveal either incompetence or recalcitrance are as follows:

Juror Ten is a bigot. Despite having heard all the details about the case before him, he is ready to declare the defendant guilty based simply on the type of person he is. He says, "I've lived among 'em all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that." This shows he is basing his verdict on a group of people and their supposed reputation, not on the young man's individual actions.

Juror Three has emotional baggage. Because he's had a falling out with his own son and the defendant reminds him of that personal heartache, he is unable to weigh the case on its merits.

Juror Seven is in a hurry. He wants to get to the event he has tickets for that night, so he makes choices not based solely on the merits of the case but because he's impatient and wants to leave.

Because of the many ways an individual juror can be incompetent or stubborn, any one juror can spoil a trial if a unanimous verdict is called for. Juries are made up of flawed people; therefore, they can make wrong decisions. However, as the play also reveals, juries offer a chance for the more reasonable and astute jurors to convince others toward their perspective, thus improving the chances for a positive outcome.

The movie Twelve Angry Men is based on the play by the same title by Reginald Rose. The movie exposes several flaws in the US justice system, including the potential bias of the jurors, the risk of "herd mentality" impacting the vote, and the frequent desire by the jurors to come to a decision—perhaps without having properly vetted the evidence—in order to get their civil duty over with.

In fact, when the jurors file into the jury room, it is hot. There apparently is no air conditioning (the film was released in 1957). They are uncomfortable, and the heat makes them cranky. This also has an impact on how they view their task. At the same time, Juror 7 is impatient to finish so that he can get to a baseball game. Therefore, to expedite matters, he changes his vote. In these ways, the story reveals a weakness of jury system when personal comfort—or discomfort—and individual motivation impact jurors’ ability to make a reasonable determination of innocence or guilt.

With the first vote, the jurors realize that all but one—Juror 8—agree that the defendant is guilty. However, rather than yield to the pressure of the other jurors, Number 8 insists that they review and discuss the case before they vote again. This shows that "herd mentality" is another potential danger of the system, as is pressure from the majority. Number 8, played in the film by Henry Fonda, could have given in and voted with the majority, but he held his ground.

Interestingly, the film also shows how the personalities of the various jurors can impact the decision-making process. Specifically, Number 8 is played by the extremely likable Henry Fonda, as noted. Given his calm review of the evidence and his reasonable demeanor, he is able to persuade the jurors to see things a different way and ultimately achieve consensus. However, had he been a more quick-tempered individual, would he have been able to make them see things his way?

The film also shows, often in very poignant ways, the fact that most of the jurors bring their own personal background and experiences into their thought process to reach a decision. For instance, Juror 3 is estranged from his own son, who is about the same age as the defendant. He says, “Kids. The way they are—you know? They don’t listen.”

Prejudice is another flaw the film reveals. The defendant comes from a low-income background and grew up in difficult conditions. Juror 8 takes this into account when he says in the play, "You know, living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. That's not a very good head start."

However, Juror 10 replies:

I've lived among 'em all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that.

Juror 10's response shows how his prejudices impact how he views the defendant. The film also shows how uncertainty and the onerous nature of sending someone to prison or to death can reduce the jurors’ ability to come to a consensus.