12 Angry Men Rhetorical Analysis

524 Words3 Pages

On average, five percent of the American population is wrongfully convicted each year; that's an average of two people per day (evidence). While there are fewer innocent people put in jail than guilty people, how would you feel if you were a part of that five percent? Rhetorical Question - What is a Rhetorical Question? Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play regarding the trial of a 19-year-old boy thought to be guilty for the murder of his father, but thanks to the jury carefully deliberating the case, the jury came to the unanimous decision of “not guilty.” Some of the most significant arguments in this case regarded a witness's eyeglasses and the direction of the stab wound, but these were both countered and concluded as even more reasonable …show more content…

To start with, during his trial, there was a woman revealed to be a witness to the murder, a woman that wore bifocals after evaluating hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence (hyperbole). Juror 8 began to explore the possibility that the woman might not have been able to distinctly see who murdered the defendant's father. Through questioning the other jurors, it was decided that she would not have been able to clearly identify who murdered the defendant’s father. After some of the jurors denied wearing their eyeglasses to bed when asked by Juror 8, Juror 8 argued, “‘I think it is logical to say that she was not wearing her glasses in bed, and I don’t think she’d put them on to glance casually out the window.’” Rose. 3.1.61). The. This logical observation by Juror 8 supports his claim that the woman in question would not have been able to distinguish the defendant from any other person killing his father, even if she genuinely believed it was the defendant she saw. She does not have ideal eyesight, if she was just casually laying in bed like she said, she would not be able to tell who killed the father from across the distance of an el