To what extent is reasonable doubt an effective safeguard in Twelve Angry Men?

Reginald Roses Twelve Angry Men explores the notion of reasonable doubt, a judicial concept open
to a diversity of interpretations. Overall, Rose extols reasonable doubt, presenting it as an effective
safeguard- that is, in its capacity to protect the life of the accused. Given the quality of the evidence
at hand, reasonable doubt fulfils its function as a reliable safeguard. It is also reasonable doubt that
ensures rationality and moral correctness triumph over fear, prejudice and apathy. However, Rose
considers this safeguard as not only efficient in the sense that it upholds the life of an innocent
victim. Equally, he asserts, so too does it thrust the benefit of the doubt in the favour of guilty
persons.

Consistently throughout the play, Rose reiterates the contentious nature of circumstantial evidence.
In cases in which this is deemed the most predominant form of evidence, Rose insinuates that it is
only through reasonable doubt that the defendant can attain salvation. Juror 8 instigates the
inquisition into reasonable doubt, urging his peers to challenge the cases dubious facts and at the
very least, entertain the possibility that they could be wrong, suppose were wrong? Juror 8
exemplifies this sentiment through a careful reconstruction of the old mans witness testimony that
exposes its flaws. From this it is made apparent that there is reasonable doubt as to whether the
man who drags one leg when he walks could have heard the boys voice and recognised his face.
Similarly, the womens testimony, once considered unshakeable by some, is also deemed
insufficient by the plays denouement. Once the womens eyesight is brought into question, the
jurors come to the collective conclusion that on such evidence, tainted by human subjectivity, you
cant send someone off to die. Thus, it is only through revisiting the witness testimonies is Juror 8
and his fellow jurors able to accrue the reasonable doubt required to acquit the boy. By encouraging
this scrutinisation of the cases facts which, in turn, instils uncertainty within the jury, reasonable
doubt preserves the life of the accused.

Additionally, reasonable doubt engenders qualities of humanity and a sense of civic duty within its
jurors. Effectively, it is this moral responsibility that safeguards the accused from prejudice and other
harmful societal influences. The plays opposition to reasonable doubt comes in the form of jurors
who are narrowed by factors such as their subjectivity, indifference and fear. For instance, Juror 10s
subconscious fear of a socio-economic minority translates in his openly prejudicial views, as he
generalises the accused as real trash due to his slum background. Other jurors such as the 7th
appear to objectify the boys life, amounting it to nothing in the midst of the trivial distractions that
gripped America in its time. These attitudes echo through Juror 10s assertion that reasonable doubt
is nothing but words; as the two jurors, in addition to 3rd Juror, perceive it as only an obstacle to
their subjective goals. However, it is the integrity of Juror 8 that ensures majority can transcend such
undermining influences, and in doing so, fulfil their obligation to the state by the dramas conclusion.
As he begins the case looking out the window, so to peers begin to move to the side of objectivity,
which even compels the sceptical Juror 4 to comprehend the cases uncertainty, I now have
reasonable doubt. Through the refreshing sincerity of his discourse, Juror 8 is able to convince the
jury to acquit the boy, not because he is proven to be innocent, but because it is simply the right
thing to do. Hence, reasonable doubt proves a safeguard of enormous value to the defendant,
ensuring his life is not subject to the reckless abandon of society.

In functioning as an effective safeguard, reasonable doubt does not only have the capacity to protect
the innocent, but also the jurisdiction to acquit criminals. The situation of the jury room through
which the New York skyline can be seen serves as a constant remind to the jurors of the societal
implications of their decision. Rose asserts that although irrational prejudice remains incompatible
with the process of justice, other intimations, based on the boys proclivity for delinquency, are, to
an extent, understandable. Roses jurors are torn between their attempts to discern facts from the
To what extent is reasonable doubt an effective safeguard in Twelve Angry Men?

fancy or to conform to their intuition, that the boy probably did murder his father and poses a
threat to society. Rose characterises the struggle for the administration of justice through the
interpersonal conflict of Juror 8. 8th Jurors conscious decision that it is better to defend a guilty
criminal than convict an innocent victim, affects him from the plays beginning right through to its
end. The stage directions reveal he is torment[ed] by the realisation that he, through his
perseverance in reasonable doubt, may be responsible for releasing a guilty man to the community.
Through the 8th Juror, Rose portrays the fragility of reasonable doubt. The playwright implicates
what can potentially be a safeguard for the innocent can also become a dangerously effective
loophole in which guilty criminals may obtain pardon.

In essence, Reginald Rose depicts reasonable doubt as an effective safeguard for the accused in
every sense. It establishes that the defendant cannot be acquitted when there is uncertainty, of
which, emanates from the cases circumstantial evidence. In conjunction, it ensures the defendant
receives a fair trial, dominated by reason more so than bias. Ultimately, Rose encapsulates the
safeguards efficiency through his argument that the benefit of reasonable doubt could have easily
been entrusted with a criminal in the same way it may have upheld the life of an innocent boy.