12 Angry Men Ending Explained: Who Killed The Father?

12 Angry Men is a movie with a simple premise, but the ending of its conflict and themes are incredibly complicated. Based on Reginald Rose’s 1954 teleplay (not a book), 12 Angry Men shows the deliberations of a jury on a murder case in which a young boy is accused of killing his father and facing the death penalty. At first, the jury is nearly unanimous in finding the young man guilty, but the deliberations continue when Juror 8 (Henry Fonda) dissents. Juror 8 single-handedly manages to convince the other jurors that the case has room for reasonable doubt, eventually leading to a 12-0 “not guilty” verdict.

Going into the ending of 12 Angry Men, Juror 8 has managed to get five of the other jurors on his side, completely splitting the jury. However, a vocal minority led by Juror 3 holds steadfast to the conviction that the defendant is guilty. Combined with the stressors of the sweltering heat and peer pressure, tensions rise in the deliberation room as more jurors flip their votes to “not guilty.”

Did The Boy Kill The Father In 12 Angry Men?

12 Angry Men Doesn’t Provide A Concrete Answer About The Young Man’s Guilt

12 Angry Men centers around the trial of an adolescent boy accused of murdering his father with a switchblade, but despite all the evidence provided throughout the iconic 1950s movie, it’s unclear if the young man really did do the crime. By the end of the movie, the 12 jurors manage to come to a consensus that they should return a verdict of “not guilty,” as none of them is able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the boy is guilty. However, there is never any conclusive proof of the defendant’s innocence in the crime, nor does 12 Angry Men pose an alternative for who killed the boy’s father.

It doesn’t actually matter if young man killed his father in
12 Angry Men
, but rather that he wasn’t put to death as a result of insufficient evidence and the personal prejudices of others.

Though 12 Angry Men not completely confirming the character’s innocence could be seen as an unsatisfying conclusion for the court drama, it’s actually the perfect ending. Ultimately, the iconic Henry Fonda movie isn’t about who committed the murder, but rather, whether it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the boy did or didn’t do it. Therefore, it doesn’t actually matter if young man killed his father in 12 Angry Men, but rather that he wasn’t put to death as a result of insufficient evidence and the personal prejudices of others.

Why Juror 3 Changed His Vote

Juror 3 Has An Emotional Breakdown In The Jury Room

Throughout the movie, Lee J. Cobb’s Juror 3 remains passionate about the boy being guilty of murdering his father, only changing his vote to “not guilty” at the very end of the movie. Earlier, Juror 3 was part of the vocal majority of 12 Angry Men characters that believed the young man was guilty, but he ends up being the only one left. Juror 3 gives an impassioned speech about why he must be guilty, but after he rips up a picture of his son from his wallet, Juror 3 breaks down and changes his vote. While it’s never stated why Juror 3 switched his vote, 12 Angry Men hinted at his reasoning.

12 Angry Men establishes that Juror 3 has a strained relationship with his son, whom he has not seen in two years. During the trial, Juror 3 had been projecting this relationship onto the crime, which made him wish that the boy was guilty and why he was so eager to believe the prosecution’s evidence. Juror 3 only realizes that he had these biases once he tears up the photograph of his son. Because of Juror 3’s remorse for the situation with his son as well as realizing he let his personal life cloud his judgment, he changes his vote, securing a “not guilty” verdict for the case.

Symbolism Of The Hot Weather During 12 Angry Men’s Deliberation

The Weather Symbolizes The Emotional Experiences Of The Characters

First and foremost, 12 Angry Men is about Juror 8’s crusade to prove the boy could be innocent, but the movie also places a large focus on the intense weather the men have to suffer through. Throughout the majority of the classic Hollywood movie, the jurors are plagued by the heat, which is made worse by the fact that the fan in the deliberation room is seemingly broken. Besides discussing the case, the heat is what the jurors mention the most, and while it could just be another reason they want to rush through their deliberation, the heat has a deeper meaning in 12 Angry Men.

Rather than just being an arbitrary weather pattern, the heat in 12 Angry Men is one of the movie’s most important symbols. The blistering heat conveys several key aspects of the characters’ experiences, such as the pressure to unite and deliver a verdict, their animosity towards one another, and their discomfort at having their biases about the case and life challenged. Once the jury reaches a vote of 6-6, it begins to rain, noting a turning point for their deliberation as more jury members begin to hear Juror 8’s arguments. Juror 7 is even able to turn on the “broken” fan, allowing cooler heads to prevail.

Why Jurors 8 & 9 Reveal Their Names To Each Other

The Two Jurors Bonded Over Their Shared Humanity

At the end of 12 Angry Men, Jurors 8 and 9 stop outside the courthouse and share their names with one another, which is peculiar considering none of the other jurors did the same. Juror 9 taking that step reflects the difference between him and the other individuals serving on the jury. While the others changed their vote due to their convictions in the case, Juror 9 took that step as a sign of respect for Juror 8.

The other jurors saw number 8 as a nuisance until they were each persuaded. Contrastingly, 9 saw the humanity in the man sitting beside him, recognizing that he wasn’t just trying to be difficult. The pair swapping names signifies their mutual respect, bond, and shared humanity. After all, names have power. Giving one’s name and calling another person by name are some of the most basic signs of connection.

Additionally, the pair exchanging names at the end reminds viewers that these twelve men felt safe to show their most authentic selves, partly because of the anonymity of the situation. It was easy for eleven men to vote guilty without even speaking about the case, knowing that a young man could die, because they didn’t have to face consequences for their choices.

The movie shows how prejudice can cloud a person’s judgment, from Juror 3’s relationship with his son to Juror 10’s racism.

Moreover, the jurors in 12 Angry Men could show their biases with few risks because nobody knew their names, and they were behind closed doors. Ultimately, the two most compassionate men sharing names helps solidify the message that anonymity breeds contempt. Unlike the others, Jurors 8 and 9 didn’t hide behind their namelessness.

How 12 Angry Men’s Original Ending Compares To The 1997 Remake

Jurors 10 and 3 Have Different Endings In The Remake Of 12 Angry Men

The 1957 movie and 1997 remake of 12 Angry Men both follow the original teleplay fairly closely, but the TV remake takes a different approach to conveying the same basic themes and character arcs. Juror 10’s horrific and bigoted monologue and the subsequent reactions create one of the most memorable scenes in every version of the story. In the 1957 movie, the juror starts going on a vitriolic tirade, and each man gets up, one by one, and turns away from him. This moment is especially powerful in a film from the 1950s.

The scene in the 1997 remake starts the same way. Juror 10 begins spouting off hateful and racist statements to justify him thinking the young man on trial is guilty. Because Juror 10 is Black in this version of the story, he starts appealing to the other Black members of the jury, saying that Latinx people are outbreeding them. This change serves as a reminder that minority groups aren’t a monolith, and they can harbor racist attitudes, too. Rather than standing up and turning their backs to him, the men at the table push back against his statements.

Ultimately, Juror 10 acquiesces to the others with a not guilty vote because he doesn’t care anymore, not because he actually believes the man innocent. His attitude towards the vote is a massive change from the 1957 version of 12 Angry Men. In the original movie, Juror 10 votes not guilty, seemingly because he believes that the young man didn’t commit the crime, no matter his opinions on Latinx people. Juror 10’s decision in the 1997 remake reinforces the fact that racism isn’t an easy thing to overcome.

The 1997 remake of 12 Angry Men also changes how Juror 3 realizes his bias and changes his vote. Rather than ripping up a picture of his son, the juror ends his monologue by saying that he can feel the knife going inside him, comparing himself to the victim. After this emotional climax, Juror 8 points out that the defendant isn’t his son.

Ultimately, both versions are equally impactful, with Lee J. Cobb and George C. Scott giving tear-jerking performances. The original actor expresses the character’s distress more through physicality, whereas the remake actor uses his inflection and tone to convey his emotional breakdown. In both cases, the emotions switch from intense anger and distress to sorrow in a palpable way.

The Meaning Of 12 Angry Men’s Story

12 Angry Men Explores The Meaning Of Humanity Through A Trial

For a movie with such a simple premise, the real meaning of 12 Angry Men’s story is multifaceted, revealing truths about democracy, the American judicial system, and human nature. A pushback against lynch mob mentalities, 12 Angry Men highlights how American democracy and the judicial system should work. Other courtroom dramas tend to focus on proving guilt, but 12 Angry Men reasserts that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. While it doesn’t make for a sensational story, it is just as triumphant to see 12 incredibly different men stop a boy from getting the death penalty as it can be to see a conviction in other media.

12 Angry Men is also a study of human nature, good and bad. The movie shows how prejudice can cloud a person’s judgment, from Juror 3’s relationship with his son to Juror 10’s racism. This is leveraged with Juror 8’s moral compass, and by coupling compassion with the facts as they are presented, he ensures a fair verdict. Juror 8’s compassion is the heartbeat of the story, exemplified by him helping Juror 3 with his coat after Juror 3’s breakdown. Examining these complex themes in just over 90 minutes is an impressive feat, demonstrating that 12 Angry Men’s reputation as one of the best movies from the 1950s is well-earned.