Twelve Angry Men: Homicide Trial

Twelve Angry Men is a drama written by Reginald Rose concerning the jury of a homicide trial. It was broadcasted initially as a television play in 1954. The following year it made it's path to the stage, and was made a highly successful film. Since then it has been given numerous remakes, adaptations, and tributes.
The play concerns the deliberations of the jury of a homicide trial. At the beginning, they have a nearly unanimous decision of guilty, with a single dissenter of not guilty, who throughout the play sews a seed of reasonable doubt. This was first made as a 1954 teleplay by Reginald Rose for the Studio One anthology television series, and aired as a live CBS Television production on the September 20th 1954. The drama was later rewritten for the stage in 1955 under the same title.
Rose wrote several spin offs of the story. In 1964, Leo Genn appeared in the play on the London stage. In other theatrical adaptations in which female actors are cast, the play is retitled 12 Angry
Jurors, 12 Angry Men and Women or 12 Angry Women.
In 2004, the Roundabout Theatre Company presented a Broadway production of the play, starring Boyd Gaines as a more firm and un-breaking Juror Number 8, with James Rebhorn, Philip Bosco, and Robert Prosky as the voice of the judge. In 2007, 12 Angry Men ran on a national theatre tour with Richard Thomas and George Wendt starring as Jurors Numbers 8 and 1, respectively. The tour in 2008 does not include Wendt but features another television personality, Kevin Dobson of Kojak and Knots Landing, as Juror Number 10. The London West End production of the play opened in November 2013, originally running until March 1st 2014, but extended until June 14th 2014, at the Garrick Theatre starring Tom Conti, Jeff Fahey, Nick Moran and Robert Vaughn.
It was rewritten in 1957 as a feature film, 12 Angry Men which Sidney Lumet directed, and which starred Henry Fonda.
It was nominated for Academy Awards in the categories of Best Director, Best Picture, and Best Writing of Adapted Screenplay. Many television series have episodes based on the teleplay. These include Hancock's Half Hour, Picket Fences, Perfect Strangers, Family Matters, The Dead Zone, Early Edition, The Odd Couple, King of the Hill, Matlock, 7th Heaven, Veronica Mars, Monk, Hey Arnold!, Peep Show, My Wife and Kids, Robot Chicken, Sesame Street, and Charmed.
A season 11 episode of Family Guy, "12 and a Half Angry Men," is a parody of this film, where the town mayor is accused of murder, with Brian and Peter called to be members of the jury and Brian taking on the position of the eighth juror. Season three of Inside Amy Schumer devoted an episode to one sketch, a parody of 12 Angry Men where the twelve men must decide if Amy Schumer is hot enough to have her own TV
show.
At the beginning of the movie, the first 11 men who felt as if he was guilty of homicide had no strong arguments as to why the boy was guilty. They based there decision on what the witnesses stated they had seen, most did not consider taking it upon them to self investigate what possibly could have happened except one, and the man who took it upon himself to fully interpret what could have been the situation that had the boy in the guilty standpoint even though most of the evidence was not strong enough to testify in favor for the boy.
In addition to the fact that most of the jurors had a firm, belief that the boy was guilty of homicide, the fact that one man had such a strong belief that this boy wasn't guilty and was able to persuade 11 men into not guilty thought bring in how you cannot bring bias into the matter. Most people do bring in bias, today they have created a way to get "the best fits for the job" as they say, the questioning eliminates the bias jurors who have had a situation similar and can relate and keep the non-bias jurors.
Personally I think the fact that such strong believers of the boy being guilty changing to not-guilty shows that some jurors in other cases might have decided in an prejudice matter over what really makes might have been the situation so in a strong sense, I do think the change of guilty to non-guilty is valid. Anyone can make you think something is right but it's in your mind where you have to solve the equation.
All the people chosen had a certain personality that made them different even in their decisions. one of the men decided that the boy was guilty because of the fact that his son slapping him and leaving which is a similar situation as to this case, which makes him an invalid juror by default but the fact that he was kept apart of the jury is a major court error which today is not permitted. Today's jury selection has improved by a long-stretch.