The Jurors within Twelve Angry Men portray individual aspects of a 1950s American culture, all with their own take on the American Jury system. The closed minded, sheep like attitudes of the Jurors illustrates the McCathic mentality of the public which directly reflects the weaknesses within the American Jury system. Though flawed in many aspects one juror displays the key strength in the American justice system when dealing with serious crimes, a unanimous vote must be accomplished through the consideration of reasonable doubt. The question remains throughout if Juror 8 had not been present would the verdict of been the same? Would reasonable doubt of been taken into consideration? And was the American justice system strong enough to uphold their value of innocent until proven guilty.
Throughout the play there are many references to the judicial concept of "reasonable doubt". This theme is a thread that runs its way through all the deliberations and eventually exposes the weakness of the whole system as well. Reasonable doubt can be a very difficult term to understand. If a jury has any reasonable doubt that the accused may not have committed the crime, then it must enter a not guilty verdict. Each person has their own opinion of the term reasonable doubt and therefore there is much contrast found across the jury room exposing the weak point in the American judicial system. None of the jurors believe they were cheating the accused out of a fair trial or had any initial doubt in their minds that he was guilty and yet as the case is further picked apart each juror finds a point of clarity in the unravelling of evidence and a better understanding of the term reasonable doubt. A juror’s individuality is a clear fault in the American jury system as the truth or the facts are never the same in the mind of another.
With individuality also come strengths. If it had not been for