In 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the author is able to maintain doubt as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence by never sharing definitive proof of the boy’s innocence. Instead, Rose creates characters that force the reader to question their reasonings. Without controversy and opposing sides, there would be no purpose to the play. Throughout the play, doubt is evident as to the defendant’s guilt due to Juror 8’s lone vote, Juror 3’s strong personal opinions, and the gradual change in views as the play goes on.
During the opening scene, the jurors immediately decide to take a starting ballot for the practical reason of knowing who is taking what side. Juror 8 is matched with eleven votes of guilty to his one vote, innocent. Defending himself, Juror 8 explains, “...this boy's been kicked …show more content…
From the beginning, he is known for his deep belief that the boy is guilty of murdering his father, “When he was sixteen we had a battle. He hit me in the face. He's big, y'know. I haven't seen him in two years. Rotten kid. You work your heart out…” Rose is providing background information about this controversial character , giving the reader insight on how his past affects his vote, therefore creating doubt on whether or not his vote is valid. Despite when jurors conclude that most evidence is reasonably doubtful, Juror 3 stands his ground, but ultimately contradicting his entire argument when the evidence that the boy yelled “I’m gonna kill you!” was questioned, “We say it every day. It doesn't mean we're going to kill someone.”... 3rd Juror: “Shut up, you son of a bitch! Let me go, God damn it! I'll kill him! I'll kill him!” 8th juror: “You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?”’(p.37-48) This moment defines the turning point of the play when any doubt that the boy is still guilty begins to fade. Juror 3’s rise and fall contribute to the idea that no decision can ever be definitive that is based off of
During the opening scene, the jurors immediately decide to take a starting ballot for the practical reason of knowing who is taking what side. Juror 8 is matched with eleven votes of guilty to his one vote, innocent. Defending himself, Juror 8 explains, “...this boy's been kicked …show more content…
From the beginning, he is known for his deep belief that the boy is guilty of murdering his father, “When he was sixteen we had a battle. He hit me in the face. He's big, y'know. I haven't seen him in two years. Rotten kid. You work your heart out…” Rose is providing background information about this controversial character , giving the reader insight on how his past affects his vote, therefore creating doubt on whether or not his vote is valid. Despite when jurors conclude that most evidence is reasonably doubtful, Juror 3 stands his ground, but ultimately contradicting his entire argument when the evidence that the boy yelled “I’m gonna kill you!” was questioned, “We say it every day. It doesn't mean we're going to kill someone.”... 3rd Juror: “Shut up, you son of a bitch! Let me go, God damn it! I'll kill him! I'll kill him!” 8th juror: “You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?”’(p.37-48) This moment defines the turning point of the play when any doubt that the boy is still guilty begins to fade. Juror 3’s rise and fall contribute to the idea that no decision can ever be definitive that is based off of