Guilty or not guilty, often an easy answer when you don't consider that a life is at stake. However, when a life is at stake, meaning that if the verdict is guilty, the person is automatically sentenced to death, a jury will hopefully be sure that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, before sending them to their deaths. While watching the film, 12 Angry Men, what appeared to be a clear guilty verdict for the jury, instead took the viewer through numerous ethical dilemmas, particularly addressing prejudice, capital punishment, integrity, anger and hostility resulting in reasonable doubt. Movie Overview An 18-year-old young man is on trial for the first-degree murder of his father, who the prosecution is trying to prove stabbed his father to death. The judge advises the jury to look at all the evidence presented today and be sure, without any reasonable doubt, of this boy's guilt, for this guilty verdict means an automatic sentence of death. A 12-man jury leaves the courtroom and enters deliberation. room, which is extremely hot and the small rooms determine the fate of the young man. The men, whose names were never given during deliberations, are referred to only by their jury numbers, but actually sit around the table in order of number. The jurors vote immediately and eleven vote guilty, while juror 8 votes not guilty. The other jurors are shocked by his actions, they don't understand how he can think he's not guilty. Juror no. 8 stands by his beliefs and insists that although the young man is probably guilty, he wants to make sure they really look at all the evidence to make sure he is guilty without a reasonable doubt. Juror no. 8, which wants to discuss the case, is similar to McLemore's sentence “G...... middle of paper ......ul moment in the film”, similar to guideline no. 3 by McLemore “It is to a man's honor if he avoids quarrels, but fools never exercise self-control” (2003). Instead of engaging in an argument and telling him how ignorant he was, the other jurors made a stronger statement by turning their backs on him, excluding him. In the end, juror no. 10 voted not guilty. Conclusion Through the patient systematic review of each prosecution piece by Juror No. 8, little by little each juror changed their vote to not guilty. Ultimately, all 12 jurors voted not guilty, due to reasonable doubt. Although the movie never actually said whether the defendant was guilty or not, the justice system worked. The evidence was examined and deliberated, although the jury's biases and ethical dilemmas ultimately proved to show reasonable doubt, and the rights of the accused were protected.