In the play Twelve Angry Men there was a man prosecuted with the stabbing his father at the chest. 12 Jurors had to decide if the boy was guilty or not, I would say he is not guilty for two main reasons. First a quote in the book stated “I think it’s logical to say that she was not wearing her eye glasses to bed, and I don’t think she put them on to casually look out the window” (page 61). This quote shows that the witness from the plaintiff could not have seen the crime happen without her glasses on. My last reasoning on why I think the boys not guilty is because Juror 5 said “ who’s ever used a switch blade befor would never stab the knife downward” (page 56).
In the play, Twelve angry men, by Reginald Rose, was about a trial to see if a boy was a murderer. It showed reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in a criminal trial. A piece of evidence is the el train and the knife. The boy bought the murder weapon the night of the murder, he also showed it to three friends.
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
An interesting part to think about from this play is the fact that by the end of the story, all twelve men had agreed, not guilty for the defendants trial. The question is why would eleven men with the determined thought that the defendant was guilty, change their mind within a few hours and pieces of justified evidence? The final decision stated that the defendant was…“Not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty. ”(Rose 1957)
Ian Marthaler Mrs. Coplin Composition 13 March 2023 Reasonable Doubt in The Justice System In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, twelve jury members must decide whether the son is guilty of murdering his father. They must unanimously agree on whether the son is guilty or not guilty based on the facts.
One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is accuracy of the Old man’s testimony. In the play the jurors are arguing over whether or not the man heard the phrase “I’m going to kill you”. According to evidence, the noise of the train passing would be much too loud to hear anything,
One of the men does not think the defendant is guilty. This causes them to argue on the facts of this case. Doubt is more essential to the conclusion of 12 Angry Men than certainty. First, doubt is more important because the defendant would not have had a chance for his case to be reviewed.
Fallacies in 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men- a 1957 film, rather a courtroom drama, is full of emotions represented in arguments and intellectual brainstorming. Directed by Sidney Lumet, the film is an example of intellectual art. The film is based the story of a 18-year old slum boy who was on trial for killing his father by stabbing him. The judges, after seeing all the evidences and witnesses, actually leave the decision to the jury, to decide whether the boy was guilty or not. Also, if the jury decides that the boy is guilty, he would have to face the electric chair.
Twelve Angry Men “A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a nineteen years old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are weak include the one of a kind knife, the old men who heard the words “I’m going to kill you!” and the woman who is in question because of her glasses. Based on these, the boy is not guilty.
The Protagonist Reasonable doubt, a doubt about the defendant's guilt that arises due to the lack of evidence. In 12 Angry Men the members of the jury are faced with the task of deciding if the troubled boy is guilty. Within the jury, Juror 8 is the protagonist and questions the evidence given within the case. The jury spends several hours in the jury room since the group is required to come to an anonymous decision. due to uncertainty of the evidence.
In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.
12 Angry Men Essay The movie 12 Angry Men, is about a son who may have committed murder, killing his father, and 12 jurors have to either prove him innocent or guilty. There are jurors who are fixed on saying that the 19 year old boy is guilty of murdering his father, but there are other jurors who are saying he is innocent until they have proof to say that he is guilty. There are many instances when the jurors use fallacies, deductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning when they are trying to prove either that the boy is guilty or innocent.
The justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.
‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.
In a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence
