Each of the 12 people has their own background experience and life experience, and there is a constant conflict of thinking about the cognition of the same event. Everyone is making statements and assumptions, listening and thinking. Take a man who seems to be a tough guy as an example. From the beginning, he kept urging everyone to reach a unified attitude and complete the voting process until 2:10. During this period, he took a tough attitude and denied everyone until he told his personal experience, his expressions and words happened. Changed, changed their own voting results. But the final jury host turned out to be uncharacteristically. He cast his guilty vote when 11 votes were not guilty. He used his professional experience to point out the details that were ignored by the public. He could not just cast his own sympathy from his own emotional fluctuations. There is no law major. Knowledge has only the vote of guilt and innocence for naive values. Everyone thinks that they have revealed the truth. How can they know that unless they can go back to the past to witness the scene of the crime, everything can only be reversed based on the evidence in the case. The jury host also knew that the child was innocent and knew the so-called truth. For the sake of protecting the child, the original words: "He lives longer in prison than if he were released." his way. Searching for one truth again often hurts the person who got the previous one. In the end, the jury host proposed a method that best fits everyone's attitude and protects children, and then some people questioned: who is responsible for the implementation of this method? The host of the jury suggested that everyone should be responsible, and everyone resigned in advance. Some people emphasized that the task of the jury should be completed, and they strongly demanded that the meeting be dismissed! The change from the guilt to innocence attitude at the beginning is to protect the child; the final innocence to guilt attitude change is also to protect the child. At the end of the film, the man opened the window, and the snowflakes from the outside floated in. The lights kept turning, and the basketball that got stuck in the shot also fell. The man found his belongings and whispered to the birds trapped indoors: You can go, you can stay if you want, it's up to you to decide. Conclusion of the film: The long-term stability of the law can only rely on greater tolerance and compassion.
View more about 12 reviews
