12 angry men

please refute or defend, with details from the movie, this statement, "this movie illustrates that life and death legal decisions should not be left up to relatively uneducated "common" people who let their emotions, prejudices, and biases run amok. Only the college-educated architect is able to bring a degree of reasonableness and logic to the jury's deliberation. Had he not been there, the defendant likely would have been found guilty and executed."

the immigrant watchmaker seems to be the ideological "conscience" of the jury. what is the irony in this?