Juror #2

flawed the members of the jury came together in agreement and gave a correct decision. But this film shows how this flawed system prevails over truth and conscience and fails everyone who tried. It does have similar traits of 12 angry men like the heated conversations and difference of opinion and motives. where all jurors agreed upon calling accused guilt apart from one, Juror number 2 named justin who fights that he is not guilty. But the reason behind his decision we already know when the trial begins is how he himself was connected to the murder. As the trail progresses we see him influencing other jurors to believe the accused is not guilty. This was a clever angle the film had. As an audience we know how the juror himself is responsible for the murder still he is sitting in place of juror acting all innocent but he is also trying hard so that an innocent guy does not get framed for the murder. as far as i know juror duty is volunteer participation, he could have easily opted out of it and stayed from the trail, but he decided to act upon his conscience and prove that accused is not guilty. But the system fails him and the accused both at the end. It raises the question of purity of justice, and what is justice? Justin feels he should not be punished because he is a changed man and he was just caught in the act. For every person the meaning of justice changes, for some it becomes personal, for some it becomes revenge and for some its just thrill or time pass, it really shows how flawed the juror system is. Questions the old age conservative system which does want to change. Look wise the film does lack some intense atmosphere, cinematography should have been better.