Examples Of Doubt In 12 Angry Men

His eagerness to find the truth, yet not get caught in the mob set him apart from the other judges. He is the first in the court to question their justice, and inevitably loses all former weight he held in the court, mainly due to his own exodus. With this the voice of reason in the novel is also crushed, leaving only false accusations and hysteria. The day John Proctor is scheduled to hang, Mary Warrens deposition, and his first arrival in Salem all shaped him into the desperate character the reader witnesses and sympathizes with at the end of The Crucible by Arthur

Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work. On another level, the play is about America and its makeup as a melting pot of different cultures, ideas, beliefs, and temperaments.

The film 12 Angry Men opens in a courthouse where closing arguments have just concluded in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year old boy accused of stabbing his father to death. The judge gives the jury instructions regarding their duties as jurors. The judge stresses the seriousness of the crime, what is at stake, and if they have a reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s guilt, they must bring him a verdict of not guilty. If, conversely, they have no reasonable doubt, then they must find the accused guilty. No matter what they ultimately decide, their decision must be unanimous.

In “Twelve Angry Men” juror 3’s strong mind and prejudice causes him to label the defendant and judge him before ever knowing the facts in the case. Because juror 3 has such strong opinions he isn’t afraid to say what he believes it causes problems. In the novel antagonist enlightens the other jurors on him and his son situation after his son punched him in the face, he makes the comment “I haven’t seen him in two years. Rotten kid.” By juror 3 making this comment he's letting people know that he thinks kids are rotten and have no respect for their parents that have does everything for them. This makes him hateful and hostile towards younger boys.

The justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.

Twelve Angry Men “A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a nineteen years old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are weak include the one of a kind knife, the old men who heard the words “I’m going to kill you!” and the woman who is in question because of her glasses. Based on these, the boy is not guilty. 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.

“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. One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is accuracy of the Old man’s testimony. In the play the jurors are arguing over whether or not the man heard the phrase “I’m going to kill you”.

It was stated that Reginald Rose the author of 12 Angry Men was known for writing about social and political issues during the year of him writing the 12 Angry Men. There was lots of racial injustice. People of color were being convicted of crimes they did not commit. They were being killed for the color of their skin. The court rooms were filled with all white jurors.

Juror #8 is the first man to vote not guilty in the case, and they should revise their approach because there is reasonable doubt of the boy, which is the beginning of the conflict. Based on their personal ghosts and anger, impatience and prejudice, the rest of jurors is engaged in affective conflict. For example, Juror #3 has a personal feeling about the behavior of kids, and he is certain that the boy is guilty based on his own prejudice. He says, “I’ve got a kid…when he was fifteen, he hit me in the face…I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid!

Twelve Angry Men play depicts a realistic story of one of the few duties required if you are a U.S. citizen, serving on a jury. What is a completely private affair among strangers, is shown in a realistic case through Reginald Rose’s classic tale. Going in depth into case most would never want to encounter, and shows the true colors of a man. Exploring the themes of prejudice, justice, and father and son relationships. When most people hear the word prejudice they often think to race, ethnicity, or gender, yet it is not always the case.