I just looked at How did the jurors get to be elected in 1957's 12 Angry Men? , thinking it was a question I hadn't read before. And in a way, that is true: as it turns out the user completely rewrote his question ten hours ago. This is his original question (title and body):
In 1957 12 Angry Men, how did the jurors get to be elected?
None of them seems to have law as their profession so what makes them competent to sit in a jury?
This is the current version:
Does 12 Angry Men 1957, point to the bad jury selection system of the US at the time?
Considering that the jurors almost sentenced an 18 year old to death based on vague evidence and considering their poor deliberance abilities that they showed with they remarks.
If you read the comments and the accepted(!) answer, all of them refer to the original question, and thus they're almost nonsensical, seemingly talking about a completely different question -- which is of course the case.
I feel this most recent edit should be reverted. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to start an edit war, so I come here first to ask for input.