The film has relied on the use of non-verbal communication to fill in some parts of the plot.

An

example is when the eighth juror puts the jacket on the third juror at the end of their

deliberations. This shows the viewer that despite their differences and heated arguments earlier

on, they did not have anything against each other. Throughout the movie, non-verbal cues such

as angry glances were used to show how angry the jurors felt because of the different opinions

they had. Jurors shifted in their chairs showing that they were becoming uncomfortable with the

questions they were asked. The seventh juror got up and walked out of the room when the ninth

juror tries to explain why he changed his mind. This showed how impatient he was for the

deliberations to end. Juror number four started sweating when asked about the activities of his

week. This shows that he was nervous.

Juror number eight, number four and number nine presented assertive behavior. The eighth juror

did not let himself get influenced by peer pressure because everyone else was against the boy.

The ninth juror changes his mind and acts as an advocate for the eighth juror after listening to his

point of view and realizing his deep sense of justice because he was unwilling to sentence the

boy to his death without enough discussion. The fourth juror paid attention to the facts and

analyzed them logically and also conducted himself seriously.

Juror number two, juror number seven and juror number twelve presented passive behavior.

Juror number two was shy and felt no need to speak until he was comfortable with the

environment. Juror number seven was indifferent to the case and only voted “not guilty” so that

the case could end. He had tickets to a game and feared that if the deliberations dragged on he

would miss it. Juror number twelve was constantly distracted from the case for example by the

heavy rain outside. The twelfth juror at one point decides to a play a game in order to pass time.
Juror number three and number ten displayed aggressive behavior. When an example was given

of how the old man could not have reached the boy’s house in fifteen seconds like he said, juror

number three made death threats. The tenth juror was racist and kept making racist claims

condemning the defendant.

The disclosure of the motives behind the decisions of the judges by the film help the viewer to

understand why they made a specific decision concerning the case. The angry father, for

instance, disclosed how angry his son made him and how their relationship was. From his

disclosure, the viewer can deduce that he was against the boy just because he had a bad

relationship with his son. The seventh at one point changed his vote to “not guilty” just so that he

could go and view his game and the other jurors felt it was disrespectful. The tenth juror was

against the defendant’s race and had always felt like all of them were violent. This made him

vote that the defendant was guilty. Some of the jurors find the boy guilty just because he came

from the slum since they believe that people who come from the slum are criminals. All these

prejudices and beliefs that certain type of people were criminals just because of where they came

from, their race or their age group were used by some of the jurors to make decisions on the fate

of the life of a young man which is unfair.

Even before deliberations began, eleven of the twelve judges had already made up their mind to

convict the boy of the crime. They went into the room with no intention to listen and think about

the story of the boy before making a decision. Juror number 8 was not like the others though, he

had an objective approach and listened well to the testimonies before making a decision and

through the analysis of the evidence, he managed to change the minds of the other jurors one by

one. Juror number three had personal problems with his son and viewed the defendant like his

son and hence could not make a nonbiased decision because of his emotions. The seventh and
tenth jurors find the defendant’s story ridiculous and make fun of it. The tenth juror could not

listen to the defendant and respond objectively to his story because he had a discriminatory view

of his race.

When the other twelve members of the jury were forced to continue deliberations because juror

number 8 had voted not guilty, they were angry and even started arguing in their private meeting.

This conflict was solved by juror number eight who led them through a discussion where they

could all listen to the reasons each of them had for deciding on the case. The third juror makes

death threats against the eight juror but instead of getting angry and arguing with him, he

patiently explains that the defendant could have made the same claims just because he was angry

and did not really mean them.

This film showed how personal problems, emotions and peer pressure can affect our judgement.

It also showed that people from very different backgrounds can interact well with each other

despite their differences if they relegate leadership duties to a person who would help them listen

and understand each other. Physical distractions can also act as barriers of communication

between people for example the heavy rain made a lot of noise that distracted some of the jurors.