ipl-logo

Twelve Angry Men: Reasonable Doubt In The Justice System

651 Words3 Pages

Ian Marthaler Mrs. Coplin Composition 13 March 2023 Reasonable Doubt in The Justice System In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, twelve jury members must decide whether the son is guilty of murdering his father. They must unanimously agree on whether the son is guilty or not guilty based on the facts. At the start of the juror meeting, the jurors voted, and the only person to vote not guilty was juror eight. He said he wanted to talk about the case before deciding whether the son was guilty. Juror eight shows a great reason for proving how the facts and witnesses in court create doubt in him. He slowly persuades all the jurors until it comes down to juror three who says the kid is guilty only because his own son and him got in a fight. The jurors deliberated about the facts using common sense and reasonable doubt to decide that he was not guilty. Reginald Rose shows that reasonable doubt is an important part of the justice system in the play because it refutes evidence shown and also determines the outcome of a defendant's life. …show more content…

The jurors thought the knife was one of its kind, therefore, making the kid guilty of killing his father. Juror eight proves this wrong by showing them the same knife as the murder weapon. (Rose 23) This could mean that somebody else could have the same knife and have killed him. Not only was the weapon the same but the way the stab wound was had made the jurors doubt the facts. They knew the stab wound was in a downward motion which is only made by inexperienced users, the doubt was created because they knew the kid was raised in the slums so he knew how to handle a switchblade. (Rose 61) Experienced switchblade users hold the blade underhand and make an upward motion. This created reasonable doubt in many of the jurors and was one of the most important pieces of evidence that helped the jurors decide the life saving outcome for the

Show More
Related
683 Words | 3 Pages

No matter the motives of any juror, each can be traced back to Juror Eight, and the fact that he was brave enough to stand against the crowd. In the end, every juror eventually reached the verdict of not guilty, but there was still a very long process to get there, and many people that produced the answers for the others. Juror Eight is the only reason anyone in this play made a single sound, and he may have eventually been brought down if Juror Nine hadn’t changed his vote to support him. They worked as a team, with Juror Five soon joining in, Juror Eight had an incredible impact on everyone in that room, and he is the reason a boy who was most likely innocent was set

Read More
899 Words | 4 Pages

When juror number three finally speaks, “not guilty!”(Rose 1957) After realizing his prejudice, all along, it brings attention to the reader, turning their heads, and feeling relief as though the defendant is not guilty. Since juror number ten and juror number three were the most headstrong and argumentative, the moments of their final realization were very important. When the murder weapon is brought into the room, journal number eight contradicts the court's evidence and pulls out a replica of the knife. The evidence is automatically unreasonable.

Read More
727 Words | 3 Pages

Furthermore, when juror 4 points out that the kid bought the knife, took it home and killed his father then wiped off the fingerprints as he notes in act 1, “The boy took the knife home and a few hours later stabbed his father with it and even remembered to wipe off the fingerprints.” , Also in act 3 Juror 5 notes that because this was premeditated murder and the kid is a skilled knife fighter he would have stabbed downward with a switch knife as he notes in page 40 of act 3 “Anyone who's ever used a switch knife would never have stabbed downward. You don't handle a switch knife that way. You use it underhanded.” These two pieces of evidence raise reasonable doubt because if it was premeditated murder and the kid was a skilled knife fighter, he would have never stabbed his father the wrong way, he would have used the switchblade and stabbed the way a “skilled knife fighter” would stab.

Read More
997 Words | 4 Pages

Juror #2 finds it “interesting that he’d find a knife exactly like the one the boy bought”(24). Afterwards, the 8th Juror suggests that the old man, one of the witnesses, lied because of the point Juror #3 tried to make. Juror #3 says, that the old man “[ran ] to his door and [saw ] the kid tearing down the stairs fifteen seconds after the killing”(42). Juror #8 then suggests that the old man could not have done that because of his stroke.

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
333 Words | 2 Pages

One way that Juror 10 helped the other jurors reach a unanimous decision is when Juror 8 is talking about how the kid doesn’t have a good life, Juror 10 says, “‘I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say.’” This shows that Juror 10 is biased towards people in the slums, and thinks they can’t be trusted. The other jurors don’t like what he’s saying. Juror 9 thinks it is very dangerous to be saying that, and thinks he’s wrong.

Read More
708 Words | 3 Pages

Juror eight believes that the kid is innocent but the rest do not agree. He has to try to convince the others while they keep putting him down and telling him that it's obvious that the kid is guilty. Juror ten says, “Look, we’re all grown-ups here. We heard the facts, didn’t we?

Read More
744 Words | 3 Pages

Juror 8 took it into his own hands to prove the prosecution wrong and purchase the same knife at a

Read More
333 Words | 2 Pages

“A person is innocent until proved guilty in a court of law” In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, an 18-year-old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence, the three that are in doubt are the old man hearing “I’m going to kill you!” as well as the weapon of choice and how it was replicated, and finally the woman’s testimony. In my opinion, the boy could have been proven guilty, based on these the boy is not guilty.

Read More
617 Words | 3 Pages

In the play 12 angry men, the prosecutor states that the boy killed his father. The 12 jurors argue if the boy is guilty or not. And the witnesses, the old man, and the women make claims that the boy is guilty of killing his father. The 12 jurors further tried to find flaws in the evidence given to them. However other people can argue that he is guilty because there's still a lot of evidence of him being guilty.

Read More
1031 Words | 5 Pages

While it is true that the boy did not have his knife after the night of the murder and that the shopkeeper confirmed that he bought one the jury must find the defendant not guilty because there is not sufficient physical evidence to prove that the young man killed his father. An example of this is when the shopkeeper confirms something. The shopkeeper confirms that the boy bought the knife that looks the same as the murder weapon and that the knife is very rare to find. But juror 8 found a knife that looks exactly like the murder weapon and in the same neighborhood as the defendant. At this moment members of the jury see that the shopkeeper wasn’t the only person selling those types of knives in the neighborhood.

Read More
488 Words | 2 Pages

One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is the uncommon kind of knife. The testimony said that it was one of a kind knife, while juror number eight brought the exact same one in a local pawn shop proving that the knife wasn’t that rare. In addition to the not uncommon knife, we also have

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
858 Words | 4 Pages

The boy should deserve a careful discussion from jurors before face the result of the trial and he emphases that there were only two people who saw the whole process of the murder stabbing the boy’s dad Juror 8 questioned the weapon which claim to kill father, which is a normal switchblade that even juror 8 owns one himself Juror 8 told other jurors to revote, and if this time 11 jurors still think that the boy is guilty, then he will go with them and say that the boy is guilty too One person voted “Not Guilty” at the second

Read More

More about Twelve Angry Men: Reasonable Doubt In The Justice System

Related Topics

Open Document