12 Angry Men Essay

Since 1973 at least 190 people have been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. Being a juror of a murder case is very serious and scary, you as a person have a decision to whether to let someone live or die. In Sidney Lumet’s dramatic film 12 angry men, twelve men are debating the fate of a young boy who’s being accused of killing his father. Based on the evidence shown during the case, the jury must find the boy not guilty because eyewitness testimony is not reliable, the boy’s alibi is credible and there is not sufficient physical evidence to prove that the young man killed his father.
One reason the jury must find the defendant not guilty is that the eyewitness testimony is not reliable. An example of this can be seen when the eyewitness

An example of this can be seen when the police present evidence against the boy's alibi. The police present that the boy went to the movies during the time of the murder and does not remember what film he watched. At this moment the jury can see that the boy can not support his alibi. This fact may be true that the boy can not support his alibi but one juror asked the others what movie they last watched and they could not remember. Therefore the jury will have to vote the boy as not guilty. Another example of the defendant not being guilty is when Juror 8 pointed out something. Juror 8 says if the boy killed his father why would he come home to the murder scene to just get caught? At this moment all 12 men think over what Juror just said why would the boy come home if he killed his father? This proves that he is not guilty, if the boy killed his father he would not have returned home because then he would have just run into his arrest. Overall the defendant is not guilty because the boy’s alibi is

While it is true that the boy did not have his knife after the night of the murder and that the shopkeeper confirmed that he bought one the jury must find the defendant not guilty because there is not sufficient physical evidence to prove that the young man killed his father. An example of this is when the shopkeeper confirms something. The shopkeeper confirms that the boy bought the knife that looks the same as the murder weapon and that the knife is very rare to find. But juror 8 found a knife that looks exactly like the murder weapon and in the same neighborhood as the defendant. At this moment members of the jury see that the shopkeeper wasn’t the only person selling those types of knives in the neighborhood. The fact that Juror 8 whips out a knife that looks the same as the murder weapon and says he bought it in the same neighborhood as the boy lives proves that he is not guilty because it shows that the shopkeeper was not the only person selling those knives. With them not being 100% they have to vote the boy not guilty. Another example is when it was confirmed that the boy is experienced with knives. At this moment the jury can see that the boy might have killed his father because he is experienced with knives. The fact that one of the Jury members is also experienced with the knife proves he is not