Unanimous Verdicts are better that Majority Verdicts in Ref of "12 Angry Men"

1.The Unanimous Jury system allows a deeper discussion and ensures more care to be taken from the initial vote of eleven to one. It was obvious that the majority of the Jurors had set their minds on "guilty", and in majority system, the boy would have been sent to his "mandatory" death sentence. However, because of Juror 8, further discussion was forced rather than being over and finished with for the other jurors as their carelessness become apparent. Carelessness was a common problem, juror seven had wanted to be at his ball game; Juror 12 kept fiddling, his excuse being "I have this habit of doodling".Rice Pops"" later juror 7 said "I"m a little sick of this whole thing already"I"m changing my vote to not guilty," although one cannot change someone"s interest, at least they were forced to consider and more likely unanimous systems can enforce them to become careful, smart and able to find the right choice. 2.Biasness, prejudice and influences may interfere with the jurors" decisions, accuracy and prudence. This was a large problem in the jury room as the simple background of the accused led many jurors" minds into thinking he was guilty. Leading on from the previous statement, only further discussion allowed them to put aside the prejudice, biasness and influences. Initially Juror 10 said "they"re born liars" and Juror 4 said "Slums are breeding grounds for criminals," Exemplifying their walking into the room thinking that the accused was a liar or criminal for certain. The Puerto Rican boy was also thought guilty because of his family background just because the father had hit the boy many times before. This was shown by Juror 4 as he noted, "It may have been two slaps too many" this is important because they were not seeing the boy as himself, instead seeing him as a part of the whole group. The background of where he came from resulted in many of the jurors" belief that he was a criminal. 3.The Unanimous verdict also enforced that all jurors were able express their opinions or reasonable doubts and allow a different insight from people with different views on the case. After Juror 8 bravely stood up against everyone else, he was able to prove much of the circumstantial evidence had been a puzzle and did not fit together well. Also, Juror 2 was a shy and quiet juror as he claimed that "(he) had never sat in court before" Juror 2 was able to provide reasonable doubt that made many of the jurors think more about their choices. Juror 2 had stated, "It"s a very awkward thing to stab down into the chest of someone who"s more than half a foot taller than you are." If it had been majority system, those jurors that provided reasonable doubt would not have been able to express the opinion and allow a change in votes. The Unanimous system greatly reduces the chance of wrongfully sending an innocent to a sentence. Both systems have possible faults in them, however, in the majority system it is possible to punish the innocent and free the guilty as minor discussion is used. On the contrary, the unanimous system enforces discussion therefore greatly reducing the risk of wrongfully accusing the innocent. In New York State, it cannot be afforded to destruct the life of one innocent citizen. It is my determination that the unanimous system should not be changed into majority system for the reasons above. They clearly state the pros of the unanimous verdicts. Unanimous system supports the fairness of a trial with the only downside of taking more time. But with one man"s life of stake, time is worth much less.