The film, "Twelve Angry Men," is about 12 jurors who deliberate the fate of a young boy accused of murdering his father. The jury must come to a unanimous decision and begins with all but one who believes the boy is guilty. The jurors' anxiousness to end their jury duty quickly led them to a guilty verdict that was influenced by their prejudices. They came to a quick conclusion without thoroughly questioning the evidence. The prosecution presented various evidence that convinced the jury the boy was guilty. There were two eyewitnesses: an old man who lived in the apartment below and the lady across the street who claimed to witness the actual stabbing. Another evidence for the guilty verdict was the uniqueness of the knife, the alleged murder weapon. The boy's inability to name the movie made his alibi of going to a movie during the time of the crime less plausible. .
The discussion by the jurors' began by each juror stating guilty or not guilty. This leads to a discussion that reveals the jurors prejudices. Juror number four points out the boy is from a lower class i.e. the slums where they are "a breeding ground for criminals" and the boy is "a menace to society." Several other jurors agree and have a distain for that class. Juror number five is offended by these remarks because he also grew up in the slums. Ironically once the jurors find out that juror number five is also from the slums they tell him to calm down and not take the remarks personally. The racial prejudice was not blatantly evident in the film. There was a subtle reference to racial discrimination when juror number ten said, "he's a common ignorant slob, he don't even speak good English.".
Throughout the film juror number eight effectively points out the flaws of the evidence and stimulates conversation among the jurors, which makes them wonder if the boy was guilty. The strongest argument of the prosecution is the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses.