Guilty In 'Twelve Angry Men'

Talia Bitran

Ms. Pentz-Lopez

English 10 Acc

15 March 2023

Truth and Justice Essay

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is a foundational pillar of the American criminal justice system. The justice system promises a fair trial by holding every case to the highest burden of proof which is reasonable doubt, meaning that in order to prosecute someone as guilty the evidence presented must make it impossible for any doubt to exist. The widely renowned screenplay, “Twelve Angry Men,” by Reginald Rose is a courtroom drama that explores the thorough deliberations of twelve jurors as they decide upon a verdict for a case in which a nineteen year old teen is accused of murdering his abusive father. In the trial of “Twelve Angry Men,” there are

Through the meticulous examination of the two witnesses' testimonies, it is apparent that they do not meet the burden of proof. In Act 1, page 8, as Juror 10 talks about the testimony of the women across the street he says, “She swore she saw him do it….Through the windows of a passing elevated train.” The women who lives across the street wears bifocals, a special type of glass with special lenses made for people who are both nearsighted and farsighted. The statement that this nearsighted woman laying in bed in the middle of the night was able to see across the street through her window through a moving train into the boys apartment and identify the suspect without a shadow of doubt could not have happened. The woman would not even be wearing her glasses at that hour in bed, thus her testimony does not meet the burden of

However, this argument contains a logical fallacy. The logical fallacy of post hoc assumes a link between two events based solely on chronological succession, thus the argument that the defendant’s past transgressions with the law suggests fault in the crime he is currently accused of must be disregarded. What the opposing side fails to see is that the boy’s criminal record points towards his innocence. In Act 3, page 34, in reference to the wound found in the man and how it was created, Juror 3 says, “Down and in. That's how I'd stab a taller man in the chest, and that's how it was done.’ The fact that the boy went to reform school due to stabbing someone in a knife fight indicates a certain level of familiarity with knives. This proficiency with knives disputes the claim that he could have stabbed his father downwards, because a switch knife would be handled underhanded by someone with any experience. The boy’s criminal record when used as evidence in this trial created a sense of reasonable doubt, not