ipl-logo

How Does Juror Number 8 Trying To Raise Reasonable Doubt In 12 Angry Men

690 Words3 Pages

Reasonable doubt can be defined as a doubt based on reason and common sense and not purely on speculation. In the play “12 Angry Men”, a boy is accused of stabbing his father to death with a “rare” knife. Juror #8 is the protagonist in this play and he is trying to raise reasonable doubt in the jury room. He sees all sides of every question and is very persuasive. 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 …show more content…

The store owner claims that the knife was one-of-a-kind and he had never seen anything like it before. Juror #8 asks the guard to bring in the knife that was presented in court. When the guard brings in the knife, Juror #8 sets it on the table and then proceeds to pull an identical knife out of his pocket that he had bought at a pawn shop. Juror #8’s providing of this knife proves that the knife was not as rare and unique as the store owner made it sound.
Lastly, the testimony given by the woman across the street was brought up and proven to not be 100% accurate. Juror #4 reminds everyone of what the woman said in her testimony, “She said that she went to bed at about eleven 0' clock that night. Her bed was next to the open window and she could look out of the window while lying down and see directly into the window across the street. She tossed and turned for over an hour, unable to fall asleep. Finally, she turned toward the window at about twelve-ten and, as she looked out, she saw the boy stab his father.” Juror #8 uses the visual testimony of the old woman to provide reasonable doubt. He brings up the fact that she had markings on her nose from glasses. Juror #8 asks Juror #2 if he wears his glasses to bed and he replies “Of course not!”. The woman would not have worn her glasses to bed and most likely would not have put her glasses on to turn over in her bed. This proves that

Show More
Related
997 Words | 4 Pages

He then decides to recreate what the old man said he did on the night on the murder. Juror #2 seems really interested in this argument and even volunteers to help with the time. In the beginning of Act 2, the jury decides to vote once more. At the time, Juror #2’s vote was “not

Read More
323 Words | 2 Pages

The eighth juror says “Why show it to friends that could identify it. ”(Rose 31). If somebody was going to commit murder why would they buy the knife the night of the murder, unless to show they just snapped. They would buy it before they committed the crime. This does not, however, answer the question of why he would showed the weapon to his friends.

Read More
502 Words | 3 Pages

In the play 12 Angry Men, a murder case is being reviewed by a jury. This jury must decide if a kid who killed his father is guilty or not. Two jurors that were on opposing sides for most of the play was Juror Eight and Juror Three. The reason they were on opposing sides was because Juror Three believed the kid was guilty, while Juror Eight believed there was not enough evidence to convict him. Most of the jurors wanted to settle on having reasonable doubt, so another jury could be called in.

Read More
526 Words | 3 Pages

He argues that there is reasonable doubt in the case and that the accused might not be guilty. Juror #8's credibility is further strengthened when he produces a similar knife that the accused used to kill the victim and shows that the knife is not as unique as the prosecution claimed it to

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
661 Words | 3 Pages

Reginald Rose compares Juror 8’s method of thoroughly going through all the evidence to find any possible doubt and Juror 3’s method of stating the evidence that was given and attempt to reassure

Read More
744 Words | 3 Pages

Juror 8 is the most significant persuader is the entire jury. He is the only person who believes the boy is not guilty. He makes several points that justify his reasoning. The first major point he makes is the switchblade knife. During the trial the prosecution assumed that that knife was one of a kind and no other person could have a knife like that.

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
714 Words | 3 Pages

We are greedy. We as humans cling to the materialistic things in our lives. Some of us have everything we need to live a perfectly comfortable life, but keep wanting. Greed controls almost everyone, no matter how many possessions we have in our name. In this, when our greed exceed our needs, we lose sight of what is important, leading to our detriment.

Read More
1186 Words | 5 Pages

Many of the jurors use logos, logic and reasoning, to lay out the evidence in a rational and concrete manner to convince him. An example is when 4th Juror lays out all of the evidence of the knife to convince 8th Juror with seven, linear, factual points. The reader and audience is meant to connect a sense of ethos, reliability or competence, to 8th Juror, as he is the only one who doesn’t, at first, seem to be clouded by ignorance, racism, disinterest, or any other characteristic that might cloud

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
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
915 Words | 4 Pages

Throughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing.

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 How Does Juror Number 8 Trying To Raise Reasonable Doubt In 12 Angry Men

Related Topics

Open Document