3. In the first part of the film, all 11 jurors give their reasons for voting guilty. They had different explanations for this, and some of them could not even give a decent explanation of their vote. In my opinion, there were two jurors who had more or less logical reasons to support voting guilty. Juror #1 gave fact-based reasons, which at least seemed to be logical (although there was no clear logic behind the conclusions). Juror #4 based his vote on the testimony of the woman who stated she had witnessed the murder and had identified the defendant as the killer. However, both of these statements were doubted later in the process of the discussion, which shows that the jurors did not bother to gather detailed information about the case. Therefore, their reasons can be considered logical only partly, and I cannot say that there really were jurors with truly good reasons to support their votes.
4. After the discussion, Henry Fonda’s character changes his reasons to vote not guilty. First of all, he explains that defense did not approach the case with proper attention. For example, the rarity of the knife used as the main evidence was refuted by Juror #8. He also emphasized that the prosecution was built on only two witnesses, and due to the lack of attention to details, these witnesses were rather doubtful. It is possible to see that the reasons of this juror have changed during the discussion. In my opinion, new reasons mentioned by Henry Fonda’s character are more reasonable and logical than the reasons described in the opening of the film.
5. This movie has strongly affected my opinion about the trial system and about the effectiveness of such system. It is difficult to say whether the movie reflects reality with regard to jury trials, or whether it is the vision of the movie creators. However, it is evident that the decisions which can ruin or save someone’s life can be made in a very random manner, and the outcome of the process strongly depends on the personalities of the jurors. As a result, innocent people can be sentenced to death, or vise versa, criminals can return back to the society to continue their crimes. In addition to the fact that random decisions can easily be made using such system, enormous amounts of time and funds are spent on this system. Unfortunately, I cannot easily suggest a better solution for the justice system, but I believe that this system should be reformed and a more reasonable and responsible approach to justice should be implemented.