The movie Twelve Angry Men begins with an eighteen year old boy from the ghetto who is on trial for the murder of his abusive father. A jury of twelve men is locked in the deliberation room to decide the fate of the young boy. All evidence is against the boy and a guilty verdict would send him to die in the electric chair.
Even before the deliberation talks begin it is apparent most of the men are certain the boy is guilty. However, when the initial poll is taken a juror registers a shocking not guilty vote. Immediately the room is in uproar. The rest of the jury resents his decision. After questioning his sanity they hastily decide to humor the juror by agreeing to discuss the trial for one hour. Eventually, as the talks proceed the juror slowly undermines their confidence. Gradually they are won over by his arguments and even the most narrow minded of his fellow jurors hesitantly begin to agree with him.
Arriving at a unanimous not guilty verdict does not come easily. The jury encounters many difficulties in learning to communicate and deal with each other. What seems to be a decisive guilty verdict as deliberations begin slowly becomes a questionable not sure.
Juror #8 (Henry Fonda, the one who originally votes not-guilty) levels with the others by openly admitting that he does not know if the boy killed his father and solicits feedback in order to make an accurate decision. He says “I just don’t think we should send a boy off to die without at least talking about it first.” The example he set encourages the others to level and be open to receive feedback. The movie illustrates the process of leveling and