Twelve Angry Men is an engrossing and thrilling jury-room confrontation in which an "open and shut case" becomes complicated as the jurors become involved. The combatants are a dozen strangers.

The case goes about a nineteen-year-old boy who is suspect to have murdered his father and his fate now lies in the hands of 12 men from all walks of life, each with his own agenda, fears, and personal demons. By the question if he is guilty or not guilty, the results are: 11 guilty, and 1 not guilty, but it has to be an unanimous decision. One of the jurors, nr 8, begins opening the others’ eyes to the facts. It is a real fight between nr.8 and nr.3. As the evidence is scrutinised, tensions mount, tempers rise... and the 12 jurors are forced to confront their bitter prejudices in a struggle for the truth. Then the other jurors immediately begin questioning the man, not understanding how he could possibly think that way. The man responds by saying that he "only wants to talk." All the evidence is being undermined by nr. 8: a woman who claimed to have seen the boy, hadn’t seen him at all because time was to short; she had to wake up, and put her glasses on but there was not that much time to do so. There was also someone under the house of the father who claimed to have heard it and then runned outside in 15 seconds. After running this route again, they came to the conclusion that this was not possible in 15 seconds! The discussions become personal, with each juror revealing his own character, as the various testimonies are re-examined. The arguments grow heated, and the jurors become twelve angry people. Then the knife of the murder came up. Nr. 8 proved that there are a lot of people who own such knife. Nr. 8 seemed to be right about this all and the results were: 11 not guilty and 1 guilty. After a lot of pressure of nr.8 on nr.3, he also voted finally not guilty.

 My opinion

 Twelve Angry Men is a fine example of a story about the conflict between logic and emotion.

Twelve men, essentially strangers to each other, must decide the fate of this boy: did he let his rage take control in the murder of his father?

 The resolution of Twelve Angry Men, while ideal, is generally not the norm in today's society, however. It is stated several times that any other jury would convict, and I believe this to be true. There are too many examples in modern trials where the jury members pay little attention to the facts of the trial. It becomes a big game, not of guilt or innocence, but of which lawyer is more appealing to the jury.

 I think the story is a great one, with a jury discussing the importance of "doubt". The best part about the story is that even though it is not proven the boy is guilty, there is doubt and so the justice system does not allow a conviction.

The defendant's life lies in the hands of one liberal juror. The juror struggles to convince his fellow jurors that there is room for reasonable doubt, but he's working against dubious priorities and prejudices. This book makes you wonder whether the jury system is the best way of deciding if someone is guilty or not. Twelve "ordinary" men and women decide the fate of the defendant, how many are objective about the process? Some bring personal prejudices into the jury room; others couldn't care less about the outcome.

The point seems to be: don't jump to conclusions, especially in something as important as sentencing someone. I just wish we could have found out who really did it, but I suppose that wasn't really the point.

Twelve angry men showed what it was like for a jury to handle sentencing of a criminal.

Most books it seems I find myself telling people specific things about a book that I did or did not like. For this book, I liked everything. I just say that the whole book was good from just about every angle.