Twelve Angry Men: Proven Guilty

1638 Words7 Pages
12 Angry Men proves that ultimately no one is presumed innocent until proven guilty It is stated in a court of law that every man must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that the evidence is sufficient enough to prove the defendant is guilty or not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This clear statement is however neglected in the play of ‘Twelve Angry Men’. Rose Reginald clearly portrays that one person can have enough fortitude to stand alone against eleven other jurors who also proved against them that the evidence they argued in the jury room based on the court case contained flaws in them. The decision whether the prosecution was innocent or guilty was being influenced by personal feelings from a number of jurors which was realised…show more content…
In many cases Twelve Angry Men shows how personal feelings can intertwine with decision making. The play shows how jurors could instantly presume one is guilty before thinking about the truth behind the evidence, and if it’s moral at all to vote guilty and deprive a man’s life for convenience and selfish acts for most of the jurors. “I think maybe we owe him a few words.” The eighth juror here tries to calm down the jurors In the courtroom and gives a chance of opinion so the members of the jury can discuss and give enlightened hope for the defendant. This occurs before the tenth juror states “He got a fair trial didn’t he”. The tenth juror is evocative of how he believes that the defendant doesn’t deserve any reasoning. “We don’t owe him a thing”. This simply neglects the statement of presuming that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty as the juror is basing his facts on selfish motives and an intolerant way to act towards the discussion to decide the fate of the…show more content…
In 12 Angry Men this theory can almost be considered false to the jurors involved in this murder case. But one man can be credited with sticking to the innocent until proven guilty theory that most likely saved a man’s life. This juror must show 11 other jurors that he can prove with enough valid evidence that this boy is be wrongfully accused of killing his father. Reginald Rose shows us how that one mans integrity can prove to make a big difference in a kid’s life. Juror #8 can be credited with saving someone’s life. Under intense and hostile scrutiny juror #8 is the only juror to vote not guilty on the stabbing death of a boy’s father. #8 doesn’t believe straight out that this boy is innocent of this crime. #8 believes that it would wrong to send a boy off to be executed without discussing it first. Jurors #3 and #10 are the most hostile of the jurors. They believe deep down that this boy killed his father. They believe that everything they heard in the courtroom holds true and they don’t really want to see this kid live any longer. Juror #8 still had reasonable doubt about the murder. He doesn’t want to vote guilty until he has enough evidence that this boy did indeed kill his father. Many different points are made about the boy who supposedly stabbed his father, that are cross examined well by juror #8 who still stands alone at not guilty. All of the evidence that the 11 jurors found contains flaws in

More about Twelve Angry Men: Proven Guilty

Open Document