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. This is an important element when deciding who the best and worst jurors were. There were no facts as to who was right or wrong because we didn’t see the crime in question. All …show more content…
He took his job as being the Foreman seriously by breaking up arguments and by making sure that everyone had a turn to speak. Despite having one of the hardest jobs in the jury, he remained civil and calm throughout the play. In the play “Twelve Angry Men” an argument between the jurors happens, the Physical Education Teacher stops it by saying, “All right. Let’s stop the arguing. Who’s got something constructive to say?” (Rose), he knows what the jurors are there to do and he doesn’t want time being wasted on petty disputes. The Physical Education Teacher also remained unbiased and never took one juror's side over another’s, even if he completely agreed with one of them. He could have abused the fact that he was the Foreman and used that to persuade others to listen to what he had to say or used it to change other jury members vote to guilty; however, he never did that. The Physical Education Teacher was the best juror because he showed that he has respect for the other jury members by listening to what they had to say and by being unbiased towards the opinions that were different than