Twelve Correct Jurors ¨Murder in the first degree… premeditated homicide… is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts¨ (Rose, 9). A 19-year-old ¨boy¨ is on trial for the gruesome stabbing of his father. In Twelve Angry Men adapted by Reginald Rose, the jurors came to the right decision; in this case, with the evidence presented, the 19-year-old man is innocent! The woman who testified couldn't have seen it, the old man couldn't have heard it, and a trained knife fighter—like the man was—wouldn't have left a stab wound like the one left in the man´s father. ¨No one wears eyeglasses to bed¨ (61). The woman testified, under oath, against the defendant that she clearly saw the murder committed through the windows of a passing L-train, at night, without her much needed bifocals on. If nobody wears glasses to bed, how would she have seen the defendant commit murder? She couldn´t have; therefore her testimony should be discounted, which leaves room for reasonable doubt. The old man in Twelve Angry Men fell under the widely accepted stereotype of an old person, slow, can't walk well, loss of hearing, etc. When the old man was brought up to the stand he was walking very slowly. In fact, ¨they had to help him into the witness chair¨ (40)! The old man testified it …show more content…
When a detective identifies an innocent 19-year-old man as a suspect for his dad's murder when this man is clearly innocent, the detective´s integrity should be brought into question. When Reginald Rose adapted this play, he knew what the original author (Sherman L. Sergel) didn't… this case is open and shut. Innocent. Why is the guilt of this man still questioned? Maybe English teachers are running out of ideas, or because we as a society are always curious and left wanting