The jury’s final decision of not guilty in the case of murder in the first degree in Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose was just and a good reflection of our justice system. In act 2 page 28 Juror 8 questions if the old man that has had 2 strokes and said that heard the murder take place and the kid running down the stairs just a few seconds after he heard the body drop, could get to the door on time to see the kid running down the stairs. He argues against the validity of the old man’s testimony when he says, “His bed was at the window. It's (looking closer) twelve feet from his bed to the bedroom door. The length of the hall is forty-three feet, six inches. He had to get up out of bed, get his canes, walk twelve feet, open the bedroom door, …show more content…
Furthermore, when juror 4 points out that the kid bought the knife, took it home and killed his father then wiped off the fingerprints as he notes in act 1, “The boy took the knife home and a few hours later stabbed his father with it and even remembered to wipe off the fingerprints.”, Also in act 3 Juror 5 notes that because this was premeditated murder and the kid is a skilled knife fighter he would have stabbed downward with a switch knife as he notes in page 40 of act 3 “Anyone who's ever used a switch knife would never have stabbed downward. You don't handle a switch knife that way. You use it underhanded.” These two pieces of evidence raise reasonable doubt because if it was premeditated murder and the kid was a skilled knife fighter, he would have never stabbed his father the wrong way, he would have used the switchblade and stabbed the way a “skilled knife fighter” would stab. Because the evidence that was shown failed to meet the burden of proof and raise reasonable doubt the defendant must be found not
In the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror Eight proves himself to be a hero because he is courageous and fights for justice. Juror Eight demonstrates his heroic qualities by displaying bravery in defying the other jurors. After estimating the time it took for the old man to walk from his bedroom to the front door, Juror Three denies Juror Eight’s theory and Juror Eight questions Juror Three’s intentions when he asks, “Slip through our fingers? Are you his executioner?” (Rose 47).
He wanted to give this boy a fair chance without even knowing him. Juror 8 gives some very valid points which lead me to believe that the boy is not guilty; some of those points being: first, the old man in the apartment would not have made it to the door in time and he couldn’t have heard it, and second, the lady across the street wouldn’t have had her glasses on and she saw the murder through 2 moving train cars. Juror 8 is the one to bring up the issue of the man not being able to make it to the door. “He had to get up out of bed, got his canes, walk twelve feet, open the bedroom door, walk forty-three feet and open the front door-all in fifteen seconds.
When discussing whether the crippled old man could walk from the house to the door in 15 seconds, Juror 3 initially insisted that the old man's testimony must be accurate, but then said in the heat of the moment that the old man's words were not necessarily accurate. At this point, everyone realized that there were doubts about the crippled old man's words, as well as the inconsistencies in the views expressed by Juror 3, who was a bit too radical. After Juror 8 demonstrated the scene of the limping old man walking from the bedroom to the front door, he had a confrontation with Juror 3. Juror 3's impulsive "I'm going to kill you" statement, which had been their evidence of the defendant's guilt, was again overturned when the other jurors fell silent and looked at Juror 3. It was also here that the jurors began to suggest that people should not bring personal feelings to bear on the guilt or innocence of the
12 Angry men is a play about 12 jurors what have to decide whether the accused is guilty or innocent based on the evidence given, There is a slight catch, if the accused is proven guilty then he will be given capital punishment, but if there is even any reasonable doubt that he didn't commit the crime then he should be found not guilty. The author Reginald Rose followed the 3 unities, one of the unities that he used was unity of place. Basically the setting where all of the action that occured in the play was in the same place, no scene changes, or panning to a flashback, just stuck in a single place. This makes it very difficult for a court case but, Rose finds a loophole to keep the unity but to have a contributing factor to the play. Although the 12 jurors are stuck n the same room throughout the entire play there is one character that enters their world and can leave again.
Have you ever accused someone of being the culprit of an incident? In "Twelve Angry Men," a kid was charged with the murder of his father. Twelve people decide whether or not the kid killed his father in Reginald Rose's drama "Twelve Angry Men," which has 12 characters in total. Jurors 3 and 8 are two important people who stand up to persuade others of the boy's guilt or innocence. Some people think the kid killed his father and should be punished.
The play 12 Angry Men begins in a room of 12 jurors as they discuss the guilt of a boy charged with the murder of his father. The facts of the case have been laid out, and each Juror already has decided how they feel. The foreman, a man of authority, not exceptionally bright, tends to believe the young boy is guilty. Ten other jurors decide to monotonously agree with him, despite their either opinionated, hesitant thesis. For instance, Juror number three, a narrow, humourless man, and Juror number two, a dubious, afraid persona, both determine guilty.
Through the meticulous examination of the two witnesses' testimonies, it is apparent that they do not meet the burden of proof. In Act 1, page 8, as Juror 10 talks about the testimony of the women across the street he says, “She swore she saw him do it….Through the windows of a passing elevated train.” The women who lives across the street wears bifocals, a special type of glass with special lenses made for people who are both nearsighted and farsighted. The statement that this nearsighted woman laying in bed in the middle of the night was able to see across the street through her window through a moving train into the boys apartment and identify the suspect without a shadow of doubt could not have happened.
In conclusion, there are several reasons why I believe that the defendant in Twelve Angry Men is not guilty of the crime he is accused of. The lack of physical evidence, the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, the alternative explanations for what might have happened that night, and the possibility of bias and prejudice on the part of the jurors all contribute to a picture in which it is difficult to say with certainty that the defendant is guilty. Ultimately, the play reminds us of the importance of taking the time to consider all of the evidence and to set aside our biases
The accused is clearly guilty of premeditated homicide. The play “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is about twelve unique jurors responsible for deciding if a teenager is guilty of premeditated homicide when he is charged with the murder of his father. Anyone present during the trial would be able to see the boy is guilty for a myriad of reasons. In Reginald Rose’s play “Twelve Angry Men” the defendant is guilty because he had a motive, there were witnesses to the crime, and he had a background of violence. The first reason the accused is guilty is that he had a motive.
Its true purpose is shrouded in uncertainty; even lawyers and judges struggle to draw the line between not guilty and not proven. Despite this, the two verdicts are virtually indistinguishable in the eyes of the law. Some believe that not proven means the jury feels that the accused is guilty, but don't have the evidence to prove it; while others disagree. This means that the verdict can be seen as a way for juries to avoid making a definitive decision, leading to a lack of accountability and a decrease in public trust in the justice system. Nevertheless, with either Not Guilty or not proven, the defendant is cleared and cannot be tried on the same charges again unless significant new evidence emerges.
With several strong headed members of the jury, Juror 8 uses reasonable doubt to persuade their decision. One of the ways Juror 8 brings reasonable doubt to the room is by using a demonstration to test the truth behind the old man's testimony. The old man claimed to hear the boy yell "I'm gonna kill you!" to his father, and a moment later he heard a body hit the floor. In 15 seconds, the old man made it to the door of his apartment and saw the boy running away from the scene.
We have the coincidence that the man was murdered just when the train was passing. Due to the proximity of the house and the noise the train emits the old man could not hear anyone scream. The man also argues that fifteen seconds after hearing those words and watching the father's body fall he watched the young man running down the hall. With the help of the building's plans the jury number eight showed that it was impossible for the man to see the young man running down the hallway only 15 seconds after hearing the scream according to the distance between him and the hall.
Nothing is fair in life. The boy did not have a fair jury for several reasons. In the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose a nineteen year old boy is accused of premeditated homicide for his father. Twelve jurors must make the groundbreaking decision that decides whether or not the boy goes off to execution. In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose the accused did not have a fair jury because the jurors messed up the voting, knew the boy’s criminal background, and had personal connections to the case.
He fills in an X and hands the pencil to NO. 12.” (12 Angry Men). He thinks the only pieces of evidence are the witnesses because they said they saw the killing even though there was flaws within their testimony. After further investigation, he agrees the boy is not guilty. Then, juror number three persuades number twelve
Reasonable doubt proves that critical thinking is important when someone’s life is in someone else’s hands. “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, is a play about twelve jury members who must deliberate and decide the fate of a man who is accused of murdering his father. These twelve men must unanimously agree on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty without reasonable doubt. Just like the jurors, the readers of this play have not witnessed the crime that took place before the trial started. Everyone, but the writer, is in the dark about who committed the crime.