12 Angry Men Twelve Angry Men is a classic American drama that tells the story of twelve jurors who must decide the fate of a young man accused of murdering his father. The play explores themes such as prejudice, justice, and the nature of truth. As the jurors deliberate, it becomes clear that the case is not as straightforward as it initially seemed, and that the defendant's guilt may not be as clear cut as the prosecution would like to make it seem. Ultimately, the play raises the question of whether the defendant is truly guilty of the crime he is accused of, and whether justice can truly be served if he is found guilty. In my opinion, the defendant in Twelve Angry Men is not guilty of the crime he is accused of. There are several reasons …show more content…
However, as several of the jurors point out, these witnesses are not particularly reliable. One is elderly and has poor eyesight, while another is a woman who wears glasses but did not have them on at the time of the murder. Moreover, the prosecution has not been able to produce any physical evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA, that definitively links the defendant to the crime. Without any solid physical evidence, it is difficult to make a convincing case that the defendant is guilty. Secondly, several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case cast doubt on the defendant's guilt. For example, one of the witnesses claims to have heard the defendant shout "I'm going to kill you!" before the murder took place. However, another witness claims to have heard the father shout "I'm going to kill you!" before the defendant allegedly attacked him. These conflicting accounts raise questions about what happened that night, and whether the defendant was truly the aggressor in the situation. Thirdly, there are several alternative explanations for what might have happened that night that do not involve the defendant being guilty of murder. For example, it is possible that the …show more content…
Finally, it is important to consider the possibility of prejudice and bias on the part of the jurors themselves. Throughout the play, several of the jurors display biases and prejudices that may be influencing their judgment of the defendant. For example, one juror is openly hostile toward the defendant because of his race, while another is more concerned with getting to a baseball game than with properly considering the evidence in the case. These biases and prejudices can cloud judgment and prevent a fair and impartial verdict from being reached. 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