Reasonable Doubt In 12 Angry Men

The first thing I noticed in the movie 12 angry men was how hot the room was they were in. I wonder if that is intentionally done to raise agitation from the start. The Juror nicknamed “The messenger service guy” was very loud and obnoxious from the get go. He mentioned in the movie how he was estranged with his own son, which led me to believe the trial hit him on a personal level that blinded his judgment. He is stubborn and set in his ways, he is the hardest to convince that the subject might not be guilty. The juror named Henry seems to be the most reasonable. He takes his spot very seriously and is the 1st one to say the subject is not guilty. He seemed to research the case more in depth than the others, you can tell when he mentions
To convict someone of a crime, you cannot have any doubt at all that they are not guilty. To convict someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt is very sensitive, especially in murder cases.
It effected the verdict in the movie because most of the men was just sure the subject was guilty of killing his father until talking about it. After discussing the trial most of the jury had reason to believe the evidence could be doubted. The judge made it very clear to the jury in the beginning how important their role was, and how crucial it was to 100% know there was no reasonable doubt before sentencing the kid with murdering his father.
Overall I must give the movie a C, I thought it was hard to keep following and their conversation was difficult to understand at time. My personal favorite part about the movie was how it ended still making you wonder. I cannot help but think of cases like Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson, where most of our nation believe both to be guilty yet that is not how it went in court. I agree in this movie there was a lot of loop holes that did not add up to be able to convict the kid. All though it is not impossible that all the timing was in his favor and that he truly was