12 Angry Men (1957): Ranking the 12 Angry Men

The 1957 version of 12 Angry Men is one of my favorite movies of all time. It's a small setting consisting of basically just 12 actors sitting and talking, which might not sound too engaging on paper, but is actually quite thought-provoking and exciting as it goes along. For those who don't know, they are discussing the fate of an 18-year-old boy who is on trial for allegedly killing his father. It's never revealed whether or not he was guilty of the act, but the point is that the jurors have to decide if there's enough of a reasonable doubt to declare him not guilty; otherwise, he will receive the death sentence.

Rather than doing a review, today I thought I'd do something a little different. Each juror in this movie has a distinguishable personality and I've decided to rank the jurors on those personalities. I want to make it absolutely clear: this is not a ranking of the actors's performances, because, frankly, it's just impossible to do so given that every actor is fantastic in this movie. Rather, this is based off of how each character holds themselves in the jury room, and how their personalities affect their sense of judgment. There also are going to be some major spoilers, so if you haven't seen the film yet, be warned that I'll be giving away some major details. So, without further ado, here's my ranking of the 12 Angry Men:

12. Juror #7

Juror #7 may seem like an odd choice to put dead last, given that he changes his vote earlier than 5 other jurors and even helps to restrain Juror #3 when he seems like he's about to attack Juror #8 following the latter's accusation that the former is a sadist. And while Juror #7 does show occasional bias, it's not nearly as strong as the bias of Juror #3 and Juror #10.

So why does Juror #7 rank dead last, then? It's his whole attitude towards the proceedings that's his biggest issue: Juror #7 simply doesn't care. When he changes his vote, it's not because people have been making good points to convince him to change his vote, but simply because he wants to get out of there as soon as possible to go to a baseball game. Juror #11 puts it best when telling Juror #7 off:

What kind of a man are you? You have sat here and voted guilty with everyone else because there are some baseball tickets burning a hole in your pocket. And now you've changed your vote because you say you're sick of all the talking here?

Juror #3 and Juror #10 at least have reasons to think that the boy is guilty. They're terrible reasons, but they're still reasons. Juror #7 doesn't care that a boy's life is on the line; he just votes for what's most convenient for him. Even at the end of the movie, if you notice real carefully as everyone is leaving the building, he is the first one to walk out, and he still seems like he's in a rush to get out of there as soon as possible. There was no progression for him; he never proved that he legitimately thought the boy was not guilty and he has practically no moral personality traits to make up for it. Throughout the film, he remains rude and makes jokes relating to the murder scene. Heck, even when Juror #10 goes on his racist rant that causes everyone to get up and ignore him, Juror #7 simply just turns his chair and looks at the window. The man is simply too lazy to get up and be a part of the bigger picture.

Juror #7 is indeed the worst juror of the group, even if he isn't as loudmouthed and bigoted as Juror #3 and Juror #10.

11. Juror #3

Unlike Juror #7, Juror #3 does care about the results of this trial, but for all the wrong reasons. Outside of the courtroom, he's the most despicable of them all; he admits that he was abusive towards his son and is no longer in contact with him as a result. That's the reason he wants the boy to be guilty; because the kid is so young, he sees the case as a reflection of his strained relationship with his own son, and he lets that affect his judgment.

Outside of his terrible bias and morals, there's another reason that Juror #3 deserves such a low spot in this ranking: the man is a terrible debater. The majority of his arguments rely on simply restating the evidence as it was stated in court. He doesn't attempt to actually analyze the evidence; he relies on Juror #4 to do that. And when people make points against him, his responses usually consist of arguments such as "How do you know that?" He's basically saying that the "not guilty" party shouldn't know this stuff since they weren't there when the murder happened...but that kind of argument could apply to him as well. He wasn't there either.

Occasionally, he does make a decent point, like when he says that the woman across the street may have worn sunglasses after it was revealed that she had marks on her nose that meant she must have worn some type of glasses. But Juror #3's attitude practically ruins any chance at making a good argument that he may have; of the "12 Angry Men," he's the most angry, reducing himself to mindless shouting as the film goes along. He even manages to unintentionally counter his own arguments as a result, such as when he tells Juror #8 that he'll kill him after Juror #8 describes him as a sadist. Juror #8 questions whether he really means it, proving the point from earlier that people said that kind of thing without really meaning it, which Juror #3 didn't believe.

Even though Juror #3 does show signs of regretting his actions at the end, it still does not make him a good juror.

10. Juror #10

Ah yes, the biggest bigot of them all, Juror #10. Juror #10 makes his racist views very clear throughout the film, and...surprise, it clouds his judgment. He only believes that the defendant is guilty because he's from a slum, and as this viewpoint becomes more and more prominent, the jurors begin to ignore him more and more until eventually we see that beautiful scene of the jurors turning their backs on him.

In addition to Juror #3, Juror #10 is just a terrible debater. Heck, it could be argued that he's even a worse debater than Juror #3, because Juror #3 at least shows that it's possible for a shorter person to stab a taller person from a downward angle. Juror #10's only real significant point occurs near the beginning, when he states that it was possible to look through the windows of a passing El train at night and see what was happening on the other side. He didn't actually prove this; he was simply restating what was proven in court, but it's still a fair point that helps the testimony of the woman who lived across the street from the boy. However, by this point, he had already made clear some of his prejudiced views and that affected how his argument was viewed:

I'd like to ask you something. You don't believe the boy's story; how come you believe the woman's? She's one of them too, isn't she?

-Juror #8 to Juror #10

Beyond that, a lot of Juror #10's arguing is just useless rambling and shouting much like Juror #3. Also like Juror #3, he tends to counter his own points by descending into this kind of behavior:

(Juror #8 has revealed that he wants to try and re-enact the walk that the old man described in his testimony)

Juror #3: What do you mean you want to try it? Why didn't his lawyer bring it up if it's so important?

Juror #5: Maybe he just didn't think about it.

Juror #10: What do you mean he didn't think of it. You think the man's an idiot or something? It's an obvious thing.

Juror #5: Did you think of it?

Juror #10: Listen, smart guy, it don't matter whether I thought of it. He didn't bring it up because he knew it'd hurt his case.

So, yeah, still not the kind of guy you want having on your jury, though he does get a little bit of slack considering that he had a cold during the proceedings. He was still a terrible person regardless, though that kind of thing can contribute to clouding judgment even more, especially when you're locked inside a room without proper air conditioning for a good portion of it.

Juror #10 gets what he had coming towards him

9. Juror #12

Probably the most notable element about Juror #12 is the fact that he is the only juror who changes his vote multiple times. After being convinced to change his vote to "not guilty," he switches back to "guilty" only to switch back again. This is not the reason why he's ranked so low on this list. It's completely understandable why someone would have difficulty deciding in a case where both sides make seemingly valid points.

Juror #12 loses a lot of points in the fact that he, too, is not a very good arguer. This becomes more clear as the film goes along and he finds himself getting more and more intimidated by the others. Whenever he tries say something, he seems almost hesitant to do so and, frankly, his arguments just aren't that good. For example, he debates with Juror #8 over the witnesses' testimony, with Juror #8 questioning if the witnesses could be wrong. Juror #12 thinks they couldn't be wrong, but can't back it up with any proof, because it wasn't a good point for him to bring up. He also tries to debate with Juror #11 about the reasoning of why the boy would go back for his knife when it could easily be identified as his. Juror #12 claims that the boy might have believed no one saw him, but Juror #11 easily disproves this by claiming that the woman across the street screamed. Juror #12 doesn't really have anything to work off of outside of that one flawed argument; Juror #4 is the one who keeps the debate going in that scene. You have to give Juror #12 credit for trying, but the man just is not good at making arguments; heck, it could be argued that in that respect he's worse than Juror #3 and Juror #10, in that they both had at least one instance where they seemingly had a valid argument.

What Juror #12 does have over Juror #3 and Juror #10 is the fact that he's not letting personal bias affect his judgment. However, while he's not nearly as rude as them or Juror #7, he does have occasional moments throughout that injures his character more than the others. For example, he and Juror #7 both crack jokes about sticking knives in people's chests while discussing a case in which that is alleged to have happened. Probably the most notable example is early in the film when he and Juror #3 engage in a game of tic-tac-toe while Juror #8 is trying to make a point. It's rude and shows that neither is taking Juror #8's points seriously (Juror #1 and Juror #2 are also guilty of watching the game instead of paying attention, but this is the only point where either of them show a hint of rudeness in their character, unlike Juror #3 and Juror #12).

Apparently this is a riveting game of tic-tac-toe!

He may not be as bad as Juror #7, Juror #3, and Juror #10, but he's still not the type of character that should be taking the lead on a jury.

8. Juror #2

It's kind of fitting that Juror #2 and Juror #12 sit across from each other in this film, as they are for the most part polar opposites: whereas Juror #12 starts out somewhat confident and becomes more and more easily intimidated by others as the film goes along, Juror #2 starts out as easily intimidated by others and becomes more and more confident as the film goes along. It's one of the more interesting character arcs in the film, but unfortunately he also shares one important trait with Juror #12: the man is not good at arguing.

Juror #7 plays a game with the two polar opposites-Juror #2 and Juror #12

Take for example the scene near the beginning when the jurors are going around the table stating why they think the defendant is guilty. Juror #2's only point is that the defense didn't prove that he wasn't guilty, which Juror #8 easily counters by pointing out that the burden of proof was on the prosecution, not the defense. Juror #2 then can't think of anything to say other than that he just thinks that the defendant is guilty.

Juror #2 does have one point that proves to be really useful: the fact that the knife wound on the victim was from a downward angle. However, Juror #2 is not the one who makes a good case for it. His argument is that it's rather odd for someone to make a downward stabbing angle on someone who's taller than him, an argument that Juror #3 disproves by pretending to stab someone who's taller than him (Juror #8). Juror #5 is the one who proves that the point has some validity, but that's based off of his knowledge that experienced switchblade users would do it underhand, not the fact that the boy was shorter than his father.

While Juror #2 doesn't make any really great big arguments, he does have occasional moments when his newfound confidence helps out, most notably when Juror #3 argues that they should look back at the other evidence, only for Juror #2 to remind him that he had earlier stated that they could throw out all of the other evidence. Little moments like that are important, but he still just doesn't make enough major points to really qualify his ranking any higher.

Oh d-d-d-dear. That is...what I mean is...please knock it off

7. Juror #6

Of all the jurors in this film, Juror #6 probably has the least distinguishable personality. Basically, we know that he's a house painter and that he likes to defend the elderly based off of how he constantly stands up for Juror #9, but that's really about it. Not helping matters is the fact that he never makes any significant arguments with regards to the evidence. He does make one really good point, but it's more about the potential outcome of the case:

Supposing you talk us all out of this and the kid really did knife his father, huh?

-Juror #6 to Juror #8

It's a great point, but it's really a "What If" question rather than an "Is it possible?" question, the latter of which is the type of question that is often asked throughout the film.

He may not be a debater, but that's OK because he serves a role as a good follower. While he does express a little agitation at having to stay so long, he always seems like he's listening to the points being made. Take for example when Juror #8 tries to prove that it was impossible for the old man to have heard the boy screaming "I'll kill you" to the father while the El train was passing by. Juror #5 tells Juror #6 that he believes the old man couldn't have hear it, and Juror #6 agrees that he might not have heard it. He still votes guilty for a while after this, but he at least is showing that he's heard the arguments and is letting them settle. So even if he doesn't contribute much to the proceedings, he's at least a good follower who seems to have good morals.

6. Juror #1

Juror #1's main personality trait is the fact that he's the jury foreman and that he's dedicated to doing a good job with it. He does an acceptable job for the most part...requesting evidence when other jurors want to see it, taking votes when they request them. He doesn't set many limits, but he makes clear very early on that he doesn't set out to do that. In a way, that's kind of an issue because other jurors seem to almost overpower him towards the end. For example, it is Juror #4 who tries to decide on when they will declare if they're a hung jury or not. Regardless, though, he always seems fair with the few restrictions he does set (e.g. asking the jurors to sit in a certain order to keep things organized).

Juror #1 requesting to see the evidence on behalf of Juror #8

Outside of his jury foreman duties, Juror #1 could basically be compared to Juror #6. Outside of the tic-tac-toe scene, he seems completely civil throughout the case and willing to sit through and talk things out, even if he himself doesn't do a whole lot of the talking. He does make one significant contribution towards the end, though, that I think gives him a slight edge over Juror #6: when Juror #9 points out that the woman across the street had marks on her nose from eyeglasses, Juror #1 says that he saw them too, while also correctly pointing out that he was the one closest to her. Even if he's not the one who initially made the point, he adds a lot of credibility to it because he was the one closest to her. While he may not have been that active in the discussion, he at least made a valuable contribution when it mattered.

5. Juror #5

Juror #5 is one of the most interesting jurors because he grew up in a slum much like the accused and therefore feels like he's representing that population every time someone (*cough*Juror #10*cough*) makes a disparaging remark about the people who grew up there. He often calls them out on it and therefore feels like he's truly taking the lead on getting people to gradually ignore the people with those biases; he's the first one to stand up and turn his back on Juror #10's final rant, and he makes clear his dissatisfaction by slamming his newspaper on the table.

Additionally, Juror #5 also makes a really useful contribution to one of the major points: the angle of the knife. He not only demonstrates the correct procedure for using a switchblade, but also shows why it's the correct procedure: if the angle had been downward, the boy would have had to switch hands and would have lost time between activating it and doing the stabbing. It's a very useful bit of knowledge in this case that he backs up properly, and while he doesn't really provide any other major points himself, he still serves as a good back up for the ones who do support a "not guilty" verdict: he tells Juror #3 that the lawyer may not have thought to re-enact the old man's testimony, he helps restrain Juror #3 when he seems like he's going to attack Juror #8, and he declares that he also saw that the woman across the street had marks on her nose. 

Overall, Juror #5 is a good contributor to the discussion and also the most sympathetic juror given that we see the kind of treatment he gets for his upbringing thanks to Juror #10.

4. Juror #9

Juror #9 doesn't feel like an extremely large presence throughout the middle of the film, but the man is still a very key member of the "not guilty" team.

First of all, he's the first person who changes his vote. The vote is by secret ballot, one that Juror #8 has set up with specific provisions: if everyone votes guilty, he'll switch his vote and they will take a guilty verdict to the judge, but if anyone votes not guilty, they will stay and continue discussing the case. They get a "not guilty" vote and Juror #9 reveals very quickly that he is the one who did so, despite having seen the quite angry responses of the other jurors and knowing that he could very well be ridiculed for his decision. You have to admire someone like that; even if he's not necessarily standing alone like Juror #8 was before him, he's still part of a very small minority that very well could still be proven wrong. He even admits that he still thinks the boy is probably guilty, but much like Juror #8, he thinks it's important to at least look more into it before sending a kid off to die.

This gentleman has been standing alone against us. Now, he doesn't say the boy is not guilty; he just isn't sure. Well, it's not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others. So, he gambled for support...and I gave it to him. I respect his motives. The boy on trial is probably guilty, but...I want to hear more.

-Juror #9, referring to and defending Juror #8's motives

Additionally, Juror #9 also makes two very important points with regards to the evidence: first of all, he does a deep analysis of the old man in the trial who he feels could have wanted to feel important and listened to. He feels that the old man may have made himself believe that he heard the boy say he would kill his father. It doesn't seem that important at first because Juror #10 tells him that he couldn't know anything about the old man and Juror #9 doesn't immediately fight back. However, it does become more important once Juror #8 does the re-enactment of the old man's testimony. After proving that the walk from the old man's bedroom to his front door would be long (which Juror #9 correctly pointed out prior to the re-enactment), Juror #8 says that the old man may have assumed that the boy was the one who ran down the stairs of the apartment following the killing, which does manage to convince both Juror #2 and Juror #6 to change their votes. It doesn't entirely match up with Juror #9's version of events, but they're both based on the same idea: that the old man was just making assumptions, rather than actually talking about what he saw or heard.

Juror #9's other major point is the one about the woman across the street wearing glasses. This is important because it is the point that gets Juror #4 to change his vote, Juror #4 of course being the best debater of the remaining jurors who think that the boy is guilty. And...yeah, it's a really good point. If the woman across the street wore glasses, why would she be wearing them in bed if she was trying to sleep? Juror #8 appropriately backs it up by saying that she probably wouldn't have put them on just to casually look out the window. It's the point that gets Juror #4 to change his vote, and while he did ultimately get help from Juror #8 to truly analyze it, Juror #9 deserves a lot of credit for even thinking of it in the first place. Several jurors noticed it-including Juror #4-but Juror #9 was the first one to realize how significant it was. If he hadn't thought of that, it's likely no one else would have and the jury could have ended up declaring themselves a hung jury.

While he might not be the most consistent presence throughout the film, when he is present, Juror #9 takes advantage of it with good values and by thinking of the "little" details.

3. Juror #11

I had a lot of trouble deciding whether Juror #9 or Juror #11 deserved the number 3 spot on this list. While Juror #9 has two really important points with regards to the evidence, Juror #11 really only makes one, the point about the boy going back to the scene of the crime to retrieve his knife. It is a very good one, but he doesn't really manage to change anyone else's views with it, especially since Juror #4 counters with some also very reasonable points about the boy having been in a state of panic and possibly not aware that someone may have seen the killing.

What makes Juror #11 especially notable are his principles. The man takes the legal process very seriously, probably the most notable example when he gives his speech about a jury's responsibility. He's so dedicated to the proper legal process that he's even willing to call out others who vote the same as him. Take, for example, the scene where he chastises Juror #7 for voting based off of his own convenience. Not only does he straighten out how the jurors should be voting, but he even does something that is very easy to overlook: he agrees with one of Juror #3's points. Juror #3 is the first one to call out Juror #7 for changing his vote for convenience, but it's not as easy to notice because...well, he's Juror #3. The man has made it clear that he wants the boy to be guilty and has already descended into mindless shouting, so just about anything he says seems just like that...mindless shouting. Juror #11 not only took this point extremely seriously, but even was willing to admit that one of the rudest and most biased jurors in the room was right about the issue. The man is so fair to the point that he's willing to agree with points from people he disagrees with.

Juror #11 explains the responsibilities and the importance of all the jurors in the legal system

And that's what gives Juror #11 the slight edge over Juror #9: his neutral point-of-view. As great as Juror #9 is, he does seem a little too happy when he tells Juror #3 that the vote is 11-1 against him. A lot of the time, it feels like the jurors are taking sides based off of how they're voting; whenever someone switches over to the "not guilty" side, he's 100% on that side, part of a battle between two different factions that feel they need to always prove that their own side is right, rather than properly acknowledging when another side has a fair point. To be fair, a lot of this is caused by Juror #3, who through his behavior does attempt to keep all the proceedings going as though they're a contest. However, Juror #11 is one of the only jurors who truly feels neutral throughout the proceedings. Take the scene where he's questioning why the boy decided to go back for his knife. He was still voting guilty at this point, which makes this exchange feel even more important:

Juror #3: Look, you voted guilty. What side are you on?

Juror #11: I don't believe I have to be loyal to one side or the other. I'm simply asking questions.

This is how a jury member should be thinking; look at all the angles, not just the ones that benefit your own personal beliefs. It is for this reason that Juror #11 deserves the number 3 ranking.

Oh, and also, he has the best roasts towards Juror #10.

Juror #10: He's a common ignorant slob. He don't even speak good English.

Juror #11: He doesn't even speak good English.

2. Juror #4

At first glance, Juror #4 might look like an odd choice for the number 2 slot, given that he votes guilty until the very end and does seem to have a somewhat cold personality. But looking closely, one can reveal that Juror #4, much like Juror #11, is a very fair person who is willing to look at different angles.

As great as Juror #5, Juror #9, and Juror #11 are, pay close attention to when the first vote is called. When Juror #1 asks for those who vote guilty to raise their hands, all 3 of them (in addition to Juror #2 and Juror #6) kind of hesitate, indicating that while they do think the boy is guilty, they're not 100% certain from the beginning that there isn't a reasonable doubt. If Juror #8 had been like that, the vote would have been a unanimous guilty vote and the boy would have gone off to die.

The first voting. Jurors 2, 5, 6, 9, and 11 all eventually raise their hands

On the other hand, look at how confident Juror #4 is about his vote. It becomes clear as the film goes along that, while the other holdouts like Juror #3 and Juror #10 are voting guilty due to personal bias, Juror #4 is not. Juror #4 votes that the boy is guilty because he legitimately thinks that the boy is guilty.

And, of course, Juror #4 often backs it up with some very solid evidence, some of which isn't even contested. When Juror #8 says that it is possible for someone else to have done the stabbing with the same knife as the boy, Juror #4 states that it's not very probable, a point that Juror #8 doesn't respond to, nor is it ever actually addressed. He also makes a reasonable point about how the boy may not have heard the woman across the street scream in his state of panic when Juror #11 states that the boy must have heard it if he was in the room at that time. All of Juror #4's arguments are based off of logic and reasoning, and while it could be argued that he should be questioning more like Juror #8 and Juror #11, the fact that he does continually provide solid points indicates that he is thinking about these questions but is convinced that there are logical explanations. Juror #4 is not going to be convinced that the boy is not guilty based off of one piece of flawed evidence; Juror #4 needs to be convinced that all of the evidence is flawed, and that makes sense. Just because one witness is lying doesn't mean that the other witness that testified for the same side is also lying.

Another thing about Juror #4 is that while he does show occasional signs of irritation, he remains civil throughout the proceedings. When a point he makes is proven to be flawed, he doesn't lose his temper and lash out like Juror #3; he acknowledges that he was wrong. And when the other jurors do prove that all of the evidence is flawed, he willingly admits defeat. There are no attempts by him to backtrack to the other points that were disproven like Juror #3 does; he admits that they have convinced him and that he indeed now has a reasonable doubt. The only questionable moment regarding Juror #4's ethics is when he says that children with slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society; out of context, it might come across as racist, but a closer examination reveals that he's really criticizing the environment, not the people who came out of them. He describes filthy neighborhoods, but never states that "all slum children are evil"; note that he only says they are "potential" menaces, enforcing that he just doesn't like the environment, not necessarily the people. Heck, when Juror #10 interrupts him to give an actual racist rant and say that the children from that area are trash, Juror #4 actually seems kind of annoyed.

As I mentioned earlier, a major reason why Juror #4 deserves this spot is because, like Juror #11, he feels fair and neutral throughout the case. Even though he votes guilty throughout the majority of the film, he doesn't really feel like he's on the "guilty side." When his fellow "guilty" voters need to be called out, he often calls them out. One good example is when Juror #7 and Juror #12 crack jokes about the situations in the case.

Juror #12: It's not nice to go around leaving knives sticking in people's chests.

Juror #7: Yeah, especially relatives.

Juror #12: Yeah. Heheheheh...

Juror #4: I don't see anything funny about it.

 Another good example is after Juror #3 pressures Juror #12 to change his vote back to "guilty."

Juror #3 (referring to Juror #12): The boy in the gray flannel suit here is bouncing backwards and forwards like a tennis ball.

Juror #4: No point in getting nasty...and trying to turn this into a contest.

And probably the best example, the one that proves that Juror #4 does not have racist feelings, when he makes Juror #10 shut up after his big racist rant.

Juror #10: Listen to me. Listen.

Juror #4: I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again.

Heck, he's occasionally willing to defend some decisions from the opposing side. When Juror #8 asks to see the knife, Juror #3 complains that they don't need to see it again. Juror #4 is the one who points out to him that Juror #8 has rights to see the evidence. Even later, when still defending his reason for voting guilty, he does acknowledge that the "not guilty" voters have made some excellent points. The man is indeed very neutral.

Just because they're sitting right next to each other, it does not mean Juror #3 and Juror #4 are on the same side. Oh, wait, uh...well, you know what I mean.

Juror #4 is such a fascinating character to study given that he's surrounded by biased people throughout yet manages to remain calm and reasonable. He's a great person to have on a jury, but there's still one juror who manages to slightly rank higher than him, and that is, of course:

1. Juror #8

I know, this is a very predictable choice for the number 1 spot, but...come on. Can you blame me? Juror #8 was the only one from the very beginning that was willing to plead for the boy's innocence, and he managed to convince 11 people that were certain the boy was guilty to change their votes.

One thing that I think is especially important to note about Juror #8 is that he doesn't necessarily say that he believes the boy is 100% "not guilty." He does admit that the boy very well could have killed his father. But Juror #8 knows from the very beginning how serious the stakes are, and that's why he initially votes "not guilty." They need to be sure that there isn't a reasonable doubt, even in a case that might initially seem like an open-and-shut case:

Juror #10: I want to ask you something. Do you believe [the defendant's] story?

Juror #8: I don't know whether I believe it or not. Maybe I don't.

Juror #7: So how come you vote "not guilty?"

Juror #8: Well, there were 11 votes for guilty. It's not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.

Juror #8 knows that there is a risk in that he might be convincing people to let a murderer go free; that's why he doesn't respond to Juror #6's question when he brings it up. But Juror #8 also knows that doing the opposite would be worse. If they voted the boy not guilty and he really did kill his father, they'd be letting a murderer go free; however, if they voted the boy guilty and he really didn't kill his father, they'd not only be letting an innocent person die, but they'd still be letting a murderer go free (there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the father may have killed himself).

The YouTube channel Counter Arguments did an excellent series of videos on 12 Angry Men that I highly recommend checking out. The first episode is linked below:

I bring up this episode specifically because I think he makes a great point about Juror #8's debating style, one that might easily get overlooked: he doesn't try to debate every single point. When a good point is brought up, such as Juror #4's point about the low probability of someone else using the same type of knife to kill the boy's father, Juror #8 doesn't try to contest it, because, as Counter Arguments points out in the video, it's a reasonable point that shouldn't be contested.

And, of course, there's the fact that he has the most presence in the film of all the jurors. He may not bring up every important point, but even when someone else makes a good point for reasonable doubt, such as Juror #5 with the switchblade angle and Juror #9 with the witness's glasses, he's the one asking the other jurors afterwards, "What do you think?" He makes sure that they're taking in what these people are saying.

Juror #8 is a great example of someone you want on a jury: someone who questions everything. He's reasonable, fair, and patient to the people who deserve it. He's one of the great protagonists of American cinema, even if we really don't even know all that much about him as a person.

So that's my ranking of the 12 Angry Men. Once again, I'd like to stress that this is my ranking on the characters' personalities. In terms of acting, everyone in this movie is phenomenal, which is saying a lot given how limited the setting is. A lot of pressure goes towards the actors to carry the movie, and they all deliver. Definitely a major reason why 12 Angry Men remains one of the great Hollywood classics.