In the exam room of a law class, a group of students who failed an Anglo-American law exam are participating in a mock court trial in which they have to play the role of a jury to decide a case of alleged homicide. When the case seemed like a certainty, all 11 jurors believed that the suspect was guilty, but only one juror still had doubts about the case.
After a heated debate, all 12 family members voted "not guilty" and believed that the case should be reopened. What happened in the process?
The film is a true example of the negative side of civic spirit, including identity bias, non-compliance with public order, emotional presumption of guilt, and reluctance to participate in public discussion. However, the protagonist Juror 8 becomes the central character, and as a skeptical juror, he gradually convinces others to reconsider the case through logical reasoning and rational argument.
The film goes through six votes, each time with a new juror joining the acquittal camp. Through reasoning and discussion, they reveal many doubts and irrationalities. For example, the fact that the train passes by is louder than the sound from upstairs proves that the sound heard by the old man may not be reliable; The suspect's behavior of buying a special knife and not returning to get the murder weapon also raised questions; The stabbing wound and the assumption of the female witness's nearsightedness also further weakened the allegations; Finally, it was confirmed that the taxi driver shouting "I'm going to kill you" did not mean that he would actually commit the killing.
Behind this debate is the influence of personal emotions and social emotions on the ruling. Among them, the taxi driver, the commissary owner and the Beijing indigenous uncle are the three "angry men" with the strongest emotions, and after venting their emotions, they have changed their attitudes. In the end, everyone was able to put aside their personal emotions and give the suspect an objective trial result.
At the end of the movie, the truth that the rich second generation is not the real murderer is revealed, and it is revealed that the true identity of the protagonist Juror No. 8 is a prosecutor. He did not reveal his identity during the debate, but searched for the truth with other family members as an ordinary parent and citizen. The film shows the audience the spirit of citizenship and jury, as well as the quest for law and justice.
Through this film, the audience not only got a wonderful "civic spirit lesson", but also deeply understood the importance of the jury system and its impact on the verdict of the case. This spirit, whether in the courtroom or in daily life, is worth learning and Xi in.
In the continuation of the plot, the main character, Juror 8, continues to raise doubts and uncertainties about the case with the other jurors. They gradually realized that the evidence against the suspect was not reliable and began to reconsider the details of the case.
Jurors discussed knives that were considered key evidence and found that there may have been others in possession of similar knives. In addition, they conducted an in-depth review of eyewitness testimony and revealed potential biases and inaccuracies in them. The jurors also noted flaws in the investigation and evidence gathering process, such as the impatience and negligence of **, the unfairness of the trial, etc.
As the debate deepened, some members of the jury gradually changed sides. They begin to suspect the suspect's guilt and believe that the evidence is not enough to support a guilty verdict. Juror 8, the main character, continues to use logical reasoning and compelling evidence to make his point and provoke other jurors to think.
In the end, all jurors voted unanimously to acquit the suspect. They further discussed the importance of uncertainty and reasonable doubt in the case, as well as respect and protection for reasonable doubt.
The film highlights the need for fair and reasonable adjudication by demonstrating the importance of debate and reflection. It conveys an important message to the audience that when faced with decision-making, one should not rely solely on intuition and bias, but should rely on evidence and logic to think and judge.
Through this film, the audience received an important revelation that in the courtroom and in life, we should maintain a spirit of skepticism and respect logic and evidence to ensure fairness and justice. It is also a reminder that when faced with complex issues and controversies, we can have open and rational discussions with others to reach more informed and just decisions.