How Does Juror Present Injustice In 12 Angry Men

Justice for the Boy Personal experiences and prejudice blind us. This is shown through the countless times we’ve served injustice in our society. As Americans, our justice system is based on, “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”. Even with a justice system in place, jurors sometimes allow their prejudice to influence their perspective on the issue. However, in the play,“12 Angry Men”, the eighth juror sets prejudice aside and reexamines the testimony of the first witness, the second witness, and the direction of the stab wound, with an unbiased view. First, the old man claims that he saw the boy run down the stairs, right after he told his father, “I”ll kill you!”. Although he may have seen it, juror eight states, “The length of the hall is forty-three feet, six inches. Now he had to get up out of the bed, walk twelve feet, open the bedroom door, walk forty-three feet and open the door all in fifteen seconds. Do you think he could have done it?”(Rose 39). Knowing the old man is crippled, juror eight questions if he was able to pace through his apartment in time to see the boy run down the stairs. As a result, the jury becomes doubtful and insist the old man lied to be known. Clearly, the old

Even though she states seeing the boy commit the crime through her bedroom window, the eighth juror testifies, “I’m also guessing that she probably didn’t put on her glasses when she turned and looked casually out of the window. And she herself said that the murder took place just as she looked out and the lights went off a split second later. She could have had time to put on glasses then” (Rose 61-62). After noticing the marks on her nose in the courtroom, the eighth juror concluded that she wears glasses and wouldn’t have wore them in bed. The jury insists that she would have been able to only see a blurry figure. As you can see, the old woman wasn’t able to identify who stabbed the