Justice In Twelve Angry Men

Justice

“It`s better to risk saving a guilty person than condemn an innocent one” Stated By a French author Called François-Marie Arouet (Arouet 8). A reasonable doubt is nothing more than a doubt for which reasons can be given. The fact that 1 or 2 men out of 12 differ from the others does not establish that their doubts are reasonable. Twelve Angry Men is a play by Reginald rose, this play was set in 1957 at the New York City court of law jury, which it shows the conflict in the 12 jurors. The Reasonable doubt was developed by Character Against many, Conversation and the idea of justice. Juror 8 Shows that he does respect his work as a juror and has the responsibility to be an juror by standing against the other jurors For example When Juror 7 said “Well, What’s there to talk about ? Eleven men here agree. Nobody had to think twice about it except you.” (Rose 12) This shows that no one of the jurors want to doubt and

It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send the boy off to die without talking about it first”(Rose 12), also this shows that juror 8 was calm and he wanted to doubt about the case because it’s not easy to send innocent person to death even thought everything was against the kid but when person accept the responsibility being a juror they have to look deeper then any person. Finally when Juror 8 asks them “I’m saying it possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife. It’s possible” (Rose 22), Then juror 4 bring the knife and jams it into the table Then Juror 4 State “look at the knife” (Rose 23) he