The play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose features twelve different jurors from diverse backgrounds in a jury room. Their job is to “separate fact from fantasy” and determine whether there is “a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the young boy accused” (Act I) of first-degree murder against his father. The play shows that the criminal justice system is flawed, but men like Juror Eight can prove that there is trust in the jury system. Juror Eight, a calm and thoughtful man who sees all sides of every issue and seeks the truth, fights for justice against the prejudices of the other jurors to prove that there is reasonable doubt in the case and wins the acquittal of the accused; without juror eight, a possibly innocent man would have been executed. Twelve Angry Men uses the protagonist, Juror Eight, as the hero of the play to support the theme that despite the evil and prejudice in the justice system, there are jurors like number eight who symbolize an optimistic future for the justice system. criminal justice. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Juror eight fights for justice against the biases displayed by other jurors, giving the audience hope that more jurors will also fight for justice. It is obvious that the members of the jury had already made their decision upon their arrival in the jury room. Yet juror eight “votes not guilty and convinces the others to take a closer look at the evidence and testimony.” Although eleven other jurors voted for a guilty verdict, the eighth juror states that "it is not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy to die without speaking of it" (Act I), proving that he wants to consider reasonable doubt and fight for justice, even if the other jurors don't want him to. Although Juror Three is sadistic, Juror Eight explains that the only job they have as jurors is to prove whether or not reasonable doubt exists; Eight questions, three intentions when he asks him if he is “her executioner?” (Act II), which proves that he is not afraid of having a disagreement with the other jurors who are prejudiced against the suspect. Eight also challenges Juror Three on his knowledge of knife fighting when he questions him: "Doesn't that seem like a tricky way to handle a knife for an experienced knife fighter?" » (Act III). By constantly proving the jurors wrong, he shows that he is not afraid to fight for justice against prejudice. In Twelve Angry Men, Juror Eight proves reasonable doubt and secures the acquittal of the accused. Juror eight explains to the other jurors that he is “not trying to get anyone to accept other possibilities. He just says it's possible. » Juror eight tries to prove that the witnesses may be unreliable, and he tries to convince the other jurors to abandon their narrow-mindedness. Another reason Juror Eight gets the accused acquitted is because he describes to the ignorant that their job as jurors is only to remove reasonable doubt and "find out whether the boy on trial is guilty or not" (Act II), and not to prove that he is innocent. Juror Eight finds reasonable doubt in all of the witness's testimony, shares it with the other jurors, and explains how the testimony could be unreliable and false. Juror eight explained to the other jurors that the man who testified heard the boy say "I'm going to kill you" is an unreliable source because he must have heard the boy shout that on a train and it is almost impossible; He also explained that the old man moves too slowly to have seen the boy running down the stairs, as it takes him more than fifteen seconds to get from his room to his front door. Another testimony that turned out to be wrong was that of the shopkeeper who claimed to have sold the boy an "unusual knife" (Act I) on the night of the murder, but juror eight had the exact same murder, which convinced some jurors that the merchant could be lying. Then, jurors five and eight find reasonable doubt as to how the father was killed. Since the boy grew up in a poor neighborhood, he should be experienced in knife fighting and an experienced knife fighter would not create a wound like the victim's. Finally, jurors find reasonable doubt that it is not possible that the woman saw the murder happening through the last two windows of a moving El train when she did not have time to put on your glasses. It's almost impossible for her to see clearly in the dark, especially since she wears thick bifocal glasses. The majority of jurors used the witness's testimony as a reason to decide on a guilty verdict. However, once they found reasonable doubt in the witness's statements, the accused had a greater chance of being acquitted. The eight trial opinions are all based on compassionate and reasonable decisions, symbolizing an optimistic future for the criminal system. Throughout the play, juror eight works hard and ensures that all of his decisions "are based on facts." At the beginning of the play, juror number eight explains that his goal is not to convince the other jurors that the boy is innocent. Juror eight “just wants to talk for a while” and feels he “owes the boy a few words.” (Act I) on the existence or not of a possibility of reasonable doubt. Juror eight wants to make sure the other jurors' opinions are also compassionate and reasonable. Eight considers all possibilities to ensure a fair trial, he explains to Four that "it is possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife" (Act I), eight wants the others to see that there is reasonable doubt behind this matter. Although Eight wants all jurors to see that reasonable doubt exists and wants their verdicts to be based on reasonable decisions, he assures them that "they have the right" to decide that the accused is guilty; This proves that juror eight is a compassionate person whose opinions are based on reasonable decisions and wants the other jurors to feel the same way. Eight gives the public confidence in the jury system by proving that it is educated, fair, and not afraid to disagree with others. Juror two believed the defendant was guilty, simply because no one had proven otherwise, but juror eight refuted his statement by explaining that "no one has to prove otherwise." The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The accused is not obliged to open his mouth” (Act I), this shows that there are jurors who are informed of what their job is and how the legal system works. Additionally, Eight shows that he is knowledgeable about the justice system by informing the other jurors that their only job is to "decide whether the boy on trial is guilty or not, we don't care about the motives of others" (Act II). Without juror eight telling the other jurors this information, the boy would have been convicted because the jurors did not know how the justice system works. Eight also explains that the boy's defense attorney "didn't seem very interested" in.