ipl-logo

Examples Of Reasonable Doubt In 12 Angry Men

744 Words3 Pages

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. With several strong headed members of the jury, Juror 8 uses reasonable doubt to persuade their decision.
One of the ways Juror 8 brings reasonable doubt to the room is by using a demonstration to test the truth behind the old man's testimony. The old man claimed to hear the boy yell "I'm gonna kill you!" to his father, and a moment later he heard a body hit the floor. In 15 seconds, the old man made it to the door of his apartment and saw the boy running away from the scene. As the old man walked to the stand, it was noticed he walks very slowly and is dragging his leg. After replaying the information in his mind Juror 8 wants to reenact the event. Juror 8 repeated the scene of rising …show more content…

The woman claimed to witness the stabbing of the father. She says that she saw the boy stab the father and run away. He then asks if they don't believe the boy then why believe the woman if she is from a slum as well. Juror 8 then thinks of the obstructions in the woman's view. He remembers that there is an el train in between the woman's window and the boy's house. Juror 8 asks if anyone has experience beside el trains. Juror 6 explains how he just finished up a job by them and it caused rambunctious noise. Juror 8 then brings up the question: could the woman have miss identified the boy with the noise of the train and the train passing by. With it being night and the woman looking through the train the men question this piece of

Show More
Related
568 Words | 3 Pages

Therefore, Juror Nine was able to conclude that “‘that no one can prove he wasn’t. He might have been at the movies and forgotten what he saw. It’s possible. If it’s perfectly normal for this gentleman to forget a few details, then it’s also perfectly normal for the boy. Being accused of murder isn’t necessarily supposed to give him an infallible memory.’”

Read More
997 Words | 4 Pages

Juror #2 finds it “interesting that he’d find a knife exactly like the one the boy bought”(24). Afterwards, the 8th Juror suggests that the old man, one of the witnesses, lied because of the point Juror #3 tried to make. Juror #3 says, that the old man “[ran ] to his door and [saw ] the kid tearing down the stairs fifteen seconds after the killing”(42). Juror #8 then suggests that the old man could not have done that because of his stroke.

Read More
1964 Words | 8 Pages

What is worth our attention in this movie is how in the beginning they are trying to convince each other to vote guilty. 11 juror voted guilty and only one voted not guilty. Their judgments were based upon either their past personal experience which created their thoughts and behavior or upon facts. Juror 8 represents the conscience. He stood up for his inner feelings that the accused young boy is innocent.

Read More
572 Words | 3 Pages

She testified… she rolled and looked casually out the window… I say she saw only a blur.” These scenes added to the drama as more of jurors reevaluate their vote to not guilty, notably leaving juror number 3 stubbornly in the verdict of guilty. When one remembers all but No.8 were in the verdict of guilty because a majority saw only a kid from the slums. In fact, juror no.4 stated “ … he’s a product of a filthy neighborhood… slums are breeding grounds for criminals... slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.”

Read More
519 Words | 3 Pages

Juror #4 does not attack Juror #11 himself for what he said but instead explains why he believes the defendant is guilty. He brings up facts that are relevant to the situation and his argument to make it more persuasive. While Juror #4 does hypothesize, it is a reasonable assumption due to all of the evidence he has already listed as well as the evidence brought in court. Moreover, Juror #4 describes how the witness “saw the killing through the windows of the passing el train. She says that the lights went out immediately after the killing but that she got a good look at the boy in the act of stabbing his father.

Read More
747 Words | 3 Pages

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

Read More
651 Words | 3 Pages

At the start of the juror meeting, the jurors voted, and the only person to vote not guilty was juror eight. He said he wanted to talk about the case before deciding whether the son was guilty. Juror eight shows a great reason for proving how the facts and witnesses in court create doubt in him. He slowly persuades all the jurors until it comes down to juror three who says the kid is guilty only because his own son and him got in a fight. The jurors deliberated about the facts using common sense and reasonable doubt to decide that he was not guilty.

Read More
777 Words | 4 Pages

They think this is going to be a slam dunk of a case and that this child is guilty plain and simple. That is all except for Juror number eight. He's the only supporting in favor of the young man that is on trial. After the second vote do we then see that Juror number nine follows the not guilty vote. He along with Juror number eight are convinced that something does not add up and that this young

Read More
372 Words | 2 Pages

There were twelve Jurors, but one of them, Juror eight changed everybody’s opinion about the murder. There were many arguments presented by Juror eight that convinced the other Jurors that proved that the teenager who was accused of murdering his father was not guilty. Juror number eight verified that the old man who swore he had saw the murder in only 15 seconds did not. The Jurors recreated the old man seeing the murder and timed it. 39 seconds.

Read More
690 Words | 3 Pages

He takes the vote from 11-1, guilty, to 12-0, not guilty. Juror #8 believes there is room for reasonable doubt and refuses to back down until the jury agrees. Juror #8 uses persuasion when trying to raise reasonable doubt by acting out what the old man claimed happened and proving that the testimony given by the old man may not have been completely true. He acts out the testimony

Read More
488 Words | 2 Pages

We have the coincidence that the man was murdered just when the train was passing. Due to the proximity of the house and the noise the train emits the old man could not hear anyone scream. The man also argues that fifteen seconds after hearing those words and watching the father's body fall he watched the young man running down the hall. With the help of the building's plans the jury number eight showed that it was impossible for the man to see the young man running down the hallway only 15 seconds after hearing the scream according to the distance between him and the hall.

Read More
814 Words | 4 Pages

Juror Ten announces his intentions very early in the play. He speaks loudly and forcefully from the beginning, clearly showing his racism and prejudice towards the boy. Juror 10 quickly votes guilty and asserts that the defendant cannot be believed because “they’re born liars”. Additionally, he claims that the “kids who crawl outa those places are real trash.”

Read More
1011 Words | 5 Pages

Reasonable doubt proves that critical thinking is important when someone’s life is in someone else’s hands. “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, is a play about twelve jury members who must deliberate and decide the fate of a man who is accused of murdering his father. These twelve men must unanimously agree on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty without reasonable doubt. Just like the jurors, the readers of this play have not witnessed the crime that took place before the trial started. Everyone, but the writer, is in the dark about who committed the crime.

Read More
851 Words | 4 Pages

Juror eight held his ground and convince the men to look over all of the evidence. Juror eight brought out the files, acted out different situations and the murder scene. The men went back and forth for hours fighting about whether or not the boy was guilt of killing his father Slowly one by one the jurors changed their mind from guilty to not guilty. All but juror three changed their mind, he was the last one standing so the vote was 11-1.

Read More
858 Words | 4 Pages

Juror 11 switched to “Not Guilty” Juror 8 questioned the second point: The elderly man claim that he heard the father falling down the floor, and he ran to the door of his apartment and the elderly man saw the boy(Defendant) running away from the the crime scene apartment to his apartment in 15 seconds Jurors 5,6,8 also think that that the elderly man second claim is not possible physical because they all know that the witness has stroke diseases, so 15 seconds is not possible for his ability to walk around the apartment Juror 8 conclude that the elderly witness assume that the person was the defendant and the witness is not actually 100% sure that that male is the boy/defendants Juror 3” He’s got to burn!

Read More

More about Examples Of Reasonable Doubt In 12 Angry Men

Related Topics

Open Document