Is it better to kill 100 innocent men because there is a possibility that there might be one criminal among them, or is it better to let go 100 guilty men because there is a possibility that there might be an innocent man among them? In the movie “Twelve Angry Men”, the humane spirit of America is highly praised. It is believed that a man is innocent when he cannot be proved guilty and therefore no punishment can be put on him. However, in the case of Adnan, he was accused of murder and put into prison simply because a testimony of a friend of him and that he cannot be proved innocent. I don’t think is this the right way to deal with this case. Because we only live once and it is really unfair that a young man is deprived of his freedom for a crime that he “might” have committed. It is true that a young girl died of murder and this is also extremely “not fair” for her. However, does this mean that we have to find out a person to bear this crime, and it doesn’t matter who? Our rationality makes us believe that for every cause there must be a reason and for every problem there must be an answer. However, we have to admit that our ability is limited and it’s impossible for us to find the answers to all the problem. And it is certainly not right to sacrifice the future of a young man in order to satisfy our sense of rationality.