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. The final "score" is 11-1 guilty, bravely led by Juror number Eight, who apparently concluded the boy did not murder his own father. Juror number Eight, the only exception, begs the question, "Why did he choose the different path?". Being a man of honesty, of fairness who always seeks the truth, one could sensibly justify his many arguments defending the boy and the considerably unreasonable amount of time he needed to word them. Additionally, he is a quiet man who does not see life as one-sided. He is fond of exploring all perspectives of a story, and he does no different …show more content…
Many end up admiring Eight's perseverance, determination to uncover the truth, and thoughtful nature. However, it has frequently been asked whether he might be the only one to differ, solely because he has something to hide and knows something the others do not. By his incredibly defensive view, one could conclude that he was the killer. He constantly describes the boy's awful childhood and background with pity and has a peculiar perspective on the knife used. He immediately presents a weapon identical to the one used at the crime scene, bought in the same neighbourhood of the accused night before. Moreover, he insisted the father deserved to die since he beat his son daily, hence his insistence that the boy had a visible motive to resort to