In 12 angry men there are 12 jury men will distinguishing personalities who are in charge in trial either to prove the defendant (the boy) guilty or not guilty. The boy who is described as sly, big eyes, who lives in the slum- which an urban town is accused of stabbing his father to death whom he did not commit. The central idea of the film is to show that the each of the twelve jurors have a different take on the punishment of the boy- all but juror #8 who believes the boy should be free as their is no evidence that he killed his father he states "..the media has a way to tell lies about the boy." In conclusion, the twelve jurors agreed to the verdict that he is not guilty and that it was all a confabulation- the witnesses told false accusations about the boy. One of the witnesses said she heard train tracks while the stabbing occurred but her seeing of the murderer was blurred; she did not have her glasses on. The boy was liberated, and most importantly the jurors learned the media was backlashed the boy hope this helps :)
