The theory involving Christine being determined to put an end to Rhoda's life can be related to her ration intervening, influencing her to take action before Rhoda continued her killings.

Rhoda pays special attention to the way that her mother sees her, and, even though she knows that her mother has the power to denounce her, she does not attempt to murder Christine. The next in Rhoda's list of killings would have been Monica Breedlove, taking into consideration the fact that the women had been closely connected to her, and that it had been possible for her to endanger Rhoda with the information that she knew.

The ending of the movie is most probably intended to present the audience with what it wants to see, someone finally punishing Rhoda, not through putting her into a mental asylum (as should have been the case), but by physically hurting her.

Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men is an American classic with reference to how most Jurors have the tendency to be prejudiced in the cases that they have to deal with. The film presents the case of a boy that had presumably murdered his father and is facing the death penalty, depending on whether the Jurors decide or not that he had indeed been guilty.

The Jurors are initially leaning towards declaring the young man guilty, but, due to the interference of Juror number 8, they all gradually change their opinions as they realize that there are several facts to consider when having to do with a murder suspect. As the movie advances, the audience learns that certain Jurors, such as Juror 3, had originally been influenced by their backgrounds when deciding the verdict.

As in all juries, the jurors appear to be qualified to fit their roles in the beginning of the trial, most likely to express their opinions impartially. It is almost impossible for one to have a jury of his peers, as this would mean that all of the people involved in judging him have been in his situation, and would thus be more capable of doing their job.

However, Juror 8 is not willing to send a man to death just because the rest of the jury decided that that had been the right thing to do. It would be foolish and irresponsible for a juror to accept being influenced by the other members in the jury, especially when their decisions are not backed with strong arguments. When one is aware that his or her thinking can end an individual's life, it would be best if the respective juror paid a great deal of concentration on the case.
While a defendant's background could have influenced his or her activities, it would be wrong to judge a person depending on their past. Prejudice can play a decisive role in a trial, as some people can issue a verdict because of an absurd reason. A person's criminal record can also be of great importance when considering the impression left on the jury concerning the respective person. It would be less reasonable for the jurors to put themselves in the defendant's role when deciding the verdict, since such an act can influence them to be biased.

Regardless of the backgrounds and the excellence that the members of a certain jury have, it is still possible for their verdict to be wrong, since human error can intervene in the process of deciding the outcome of the trial.

Just as most of the jurors have had the inclination to find the defendant guilty at the beginning, the fact that Juror 8 voted the defendant innocent triggered a feeling in the rest of the jury, making them question their initial vote.

While eyewitness testimony cannot actually be verified, palpable evidence cannot be contradicted, thus making it possible for a verdict to be reached more quickly when there is evidence showing that the defendant is or is not guilty.

It is surprising when a vote of 11-1 for guilty changes into a vote of 12-0 for not guilty, this proving that prejudice can have a devastating influence in the course of a trial.