THE 1957 film “12 Angry Men” struck a chord in me when I first watched it in high school. It focuses on a jury of 12 men deliberating on the fate of a teenager charged with fatally stabbing his abusive father. Eleven of them were initially set to hand down a “guilty” verdict to the 18-year-old “slum kid” who murdered his own father with a switchblade, which would send him to the electric chair. But the 12th juror, played by Henry Fonda, refused to go along with what appears to be an open-and-shut case. He insisted that there is reasonable doubt, and they must avoid rushing to judgment. The film was released at the height of then-United States senator Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunt hearings that ruined the reputation of various personalities and fueled Americans’ paranoia over communist infiltration in the government, industry, schools and entertainment.
“12 Angry Men” suggests humanity’s tendency to pass judgment without careful deliberation and consideration of all the facts. People often take events at face value and hesitate to dig deeper because of their own cognitive biases. In Filipino, we call this “kuyog,” or mob mentality. Unfortunately, social media has amplified this uncanny way of making us judge the actions of others without proper context. In an environment where anonymity often emboldens people, social media users readily post harsh comments and condemn others based on short and spliced video clips, frequently without understanding the true nature of the circumstances behind them.
In Philippine society, factionalism and partisanship have locked many Filipinos inside their own echo chambers. They have become trapped in their false paradigms and convenient truths. Evidence can be found right under their noses, yet they refuse to recognize it. Consumed by prejudice and emotion, rational decision-making becomes difficult, whether in the public or private sector. This is one reason our national discourse has descended into the gutter.
Take, for example, the police corporal brought before the National Police Commission (Napolcom) to answer charges of abuse against a 76-year-old driver following a traffic altercation. The police corporal was caught on video, and his actions appeared harsh and deeply troubling toward the hapless senior citizen, who was driving a delivery truck in Taguig City.
Yet, there was also a segment in the video showing the driver suddenly surging his delivery truck forward, nearly hitting the police corporal. The issue is not simply whether the officer is guilty or innocent, but whether we carefully considered the circumstances around the entire incident before passing judgment. As the video went viral, the police corporal was hit by harsh, crude and deeply personal comments online. He felt more aggrieved when he was presented before a press conference without a hearing, and angrily lashed out: “Wala pong katotohanan iyon, sir. Huwag tayo magpapogi sa media, sir ... Sana naman po, sir, ganito, bigyan niyo ako ng chance, mali-mali po sinasabi niyo, sir ... Huwag niyo po sana akong gamiting instrumento dito para magpapogi kayo sa media (There’s no truth in that, sir. Don’t make yourself look good in the media, sir ... I hope you give me a chance; what you’re saying is so wrong, sir ... Please don’t make me a tool here to make yourself look good in the media).”
This live-reality-television scene shocked my senses and further fueled my anger over the alleged misconduct. He had the audacity to disrespect the Napolcom head in front of his superiors. He was disarmed and relieved of his post. Napolcom has all the right to punish him.
This incident reminded me of “12 Angry Men,” and how I tend to judge situations based on immediate impressions. I despise the belligerent attitude displayed by the police corporal, and his actions may well ruin the reputation of the Philippine National Police. Yet, his constitutional rights must still be respected and protected, just like those of any Filipino citizen.
In “12 Angry Men,” the jurors were besieged by their own biases and assumptions. They willfully judge the teenager’s offense based on their own personal values, background and even race. But Fonda’s character asked his fellow jurors to step back and examine all the evidence in search for the truth. He affirms the saying they have to assume the disposition of “cold neutrality of an impartial judge.”
But in this age of information and disinformation moving at breakneck speed, it is difficult to arrive at a fair judgment. I hope I never find myself in the shoes of that police corporal, and you better hope you don’t, either. In today’s social media universe, judgment is rendered even without a fair hearing. As for the teenager in “12 Angry Men,” the jurors returned to court with a “not guilty” verdict, not because he was innocent, but there was reasonable doubt of his guilt.
There is this old adage: “To avoid wrongful conviction, it is better that ten guilty persons escape rather than one innocent suffer.”
