ipl-logo

Explain How The Jurors Separate The Facts From The Fancy In 12 Angry Men

976 Words4 Pages

The judge tells the jurors it is their ‘duty to try and separate the facts from the fancy’. How do the jurors separate the facts from the fancy? Twelve Angry Men is a play written by Reginald Rose regarding the jury of a murder trial. It is concerning the verdict on whether the accused is guilty or not guilty of committing murder. The jurors are directed by the judge that it is their “duty to try and separate the facts from the fancy” so that they will be able to make an informed verdict. The jurors separate the facts from the fancy by utilising demonstration and discussion as a means to confirm if the facts that are presented in the case are accurate. These techniques are further explored in the evidence of the boy being able to recall the …show more content…

The 4th Juror presents the “testimony of the policeman who interrogated” the accused and how it in it mentioned that the accused “couldn’t remember a thing about the movies” for his alibi. The 4th Juror explains his views that the accused’ alibi lacked credibility, since in his opinion it would have been effortless to recall the movies that he had watched, whether he had been under emotion strain or not. This piece of information and the 4th Juror’s preconception view prompts the 8th Juror to initiate an interrogation at the 4th Juror to test his judgment. The interrogation was in relation to the 4th Juror’s whereabouts “last night” and the previous nights. This test fulfilled the 4th Juror with realisation that even though he had no emotional strain he was not able to commit to memory the film he saw the other night, known as “The Amazing Mrs Bainbridge”. Thus, the separation of fancy persuaded the 4th Juror that it would have been unlikely for the boy to recall the events. The fancy of recalling the movie theatre when under emotional stress or not is separated through the interview with the 4th Juror and the conversation that

Open Document