Every person may have his own way of defining the term “reasonable doubt.” In the play “Twelve Angry Men”, by Reginald Rose, one juror, number Eight, stands alone against 11 others to convince them that the boy is not guilty. He looks beyond the given testimonies in order to give the boy a fair trial, though this is more then the others think the boy deserves. If the jury finds a “reasonable doubt”, it must declare an innocent verdict.
A young man stands accused of fatally stabbing his father, and his fate now lies in the hands of his “peers:” 12 men from all walks of life, each with his own agenda, fears and personal demons. At first, based on their conversation, it seems that it will be a unanimous conviction.
The first vote is taken and one man stands out; his confidence to stand alone is strong. He is the only man voting not guilty. His opinion is reasonable; he feels that there is no way to prove it was the boy, saying the testimonies given were shaky. The others do not agree on this, arguing that the boy comes from a slum and one can’t expect more from someone with this upbringing. Eight goes into the case assuming the boy is innocent, while the others attribute guilt to him. He first brings in a knife directly like the one used in the killing, to prove that it was not one of a kind. He discounts the testimony of the old man, saying it was impossible for him to hear the boy scream over the roar of the passing El-train. He also makes a point of demonstrating that it was impractical for him to reach his door in 15 seconds, in order to see the boy running down the stairs. To some this and other logical arguments proved to be a “reasonable doubt”, and in consequence they changed their votes to not guilty. By the end, Juror Eight has everyone convinced, besides Juror Three, who holds true to his ground. Eight was the juror responsible for giving the boy a chance. If he would have given into the others in the beginning, the boy would have been falsely convicted of murder.
127 our experts are availableright now
Juror Three is the last juror to change his vote; nothing anyone says can convince him that there is a “reasonable doubt” in the case. This man was the most stubborn of all. He refused to pay attention to things that were being stated in order save the defendant from death. It was as if the word guilty seemed to dwell in his mind and was unable to be altered. He becomes outraged that the others are changing their votes and letting this kid “slip through their fingers.” He says that the whole case is based on the testimony of the woman across the el-tracks. The jurors play out the murder to themselves, and talk about the lady across the street. They notice several things about her. The lady claimed that she saw the murder through the last two cars on the train that was passing. A juror also noticed that she had indents in her nose which means she wore glasses.
She never mentioned the glasses in the trial. It was finally agreed with eleven jurors that there was “reasonable doubt” that the lady could not have successfully seen the murder without her glasses, and through a train. Everybody is angered and the votes gradually change to not guilty, some come from people that honestly believe it and others who just want to leave and get it over with. Juror Three, who deadlocked the jury, was full of anger. He finally gave his plea of not-guilty when, angered, he shouts out that he is entitled to his opinion and shall have it. A couple minutes later he caves in, most likely due to the anger he has combined with frustration. He had gone into the case thinking the boy is guilty, before any evidence was even resgistered into his head. The Juror acted as if no ones opinion counted but his, and talked above everyone else. Juror Three gave into the pressure of the jury, realizing that he shouldn’t have voted guilty to punish the boy for the memories he had of his son. He brought his personal life into play, following his heart instead of his head.
