‘Twelve Angry Men is less about guilt or innocence than about reasonable doubt.
’ Discuss about the correctness of one’s own views – to taking a more skeptical view, a more doubtful view, of facts
Set in 1950s New York with a backdrop of post McCarthyism hysteria, Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men explores the
deliberations of a jury in a homicide trial. Although the McCarthyist witch-hunts caused a legacy of suspicion, Rose suggests that
‘reasonable doubt’ remains the best safeguard of justice. The audience are thus taken into the customary black box scenario and
witness the difficulties faced by the twelve individuals when attempting to follow the judge’s instruction to “deliberate honestly
and thoughtfully” as prejudice and experiences cloud their judgements. According to David Mamet’s introduction it is the fact that
each individual interprets the standard of ‘reasonable doubt’ differently that is “the genius of the trial.” By staging the heated
discussion, Rose exposes the difficulties that surround the legal concept of ‘reasonable doubt and its application. Eventually, if
applied rigorously, Rose suggests that it is the best mean of protecting a person’s innocence. If applied insightfully, it can also
expose a person’s bigoted attitude and distorted personal agendas.
Rose characterises the 8th juror as a spokesperson for justice because he foregrounds the concept of reasonable doubt; Rose
thereby suggests that this provdes the best safeguard of the legal system. The fact that he cannot “send a boy off to die, without
talking about it first.” Forces the other jurors to carefully consider witness testimonies. Rose’s use of anonymous numbers
depersonalises the jury members to show that their personalties should not play a factor. Ironically, the 8 th juror seems to be the
only one who best abides by this nameless system. Rose thereby suggests that the emphasis must be on the boy and the
irrefutable nature of his crime. Moreover, the 8 th juror’s focus on ‘reasonable doubt’ leads to insightful questioning of the eye-
witnesses; the old man could not have heard the boy yell over the sound of the elevated train or made it to his front door in time,
and “the woman’s eyesight is in question.” As the 8 th juror exposes the inconsistencies and false assumption associated with the
evidence, Rose poses the importance of the idea that ‘reasonable doubt’ could save someone’s life.
Rose sets up the 8th juror as a contrasting voice of dissent in order to expose the extent to which the other jurors are controlled
by their preconceived notions of guilt and innocence. Despite his insistence to scrutinise the evidence, other jurors still base their
votes on biases, attitudes and personal experiences. The 3 rd juror, who says, “The man’s a dangerous killer” and the 10 th, who
remarks “You know what you’re dealing with” may be the most vociferous in their accusations of the boy’s guilt and it is this
emphasis on guilt that threatens a fair trial. The locked room appears as a metaphoric representation of their “locked minds” and
their prejudice, which may lead to a miscarriage of justice. Hence, owing to preconceived biases, jurors are too quick to arrive at
hasty conclusions and are less willing to accept the apparent doubt in the circumstantial evidence.
With an emphasis on reasonable doubt, the trial changes direction and the flaws in the evidence become increasingly apparent,
making it difficult for many jurors to insist on the boy’s guilt. At the exposition of the play, almost all the jurors are convinced of
the defendant’s guilt. The 10th juror flippantly states, “A kid kills his father. Bing! Just like that,” evincing that there is no element
of doubt in his mind. Similarly, the 6th juror comments, “There’s not a doubt in the world.” However as the play progresses, doubt
slowly creeps into the minds of the jurors as evidence is cross-examined. The tension is diffused as ‘the sound of the rain’ is
heard in the silence. The storm and the ‘flickering of harsh white light’ could be interpreted as symbols of reality and truth.
Afterwards, the 4th juror, one of the most logical and methodical jurors, (“Let’s stick to the facts.”) eventually votes ‘not guilty’
stating he now has a ‘reasonable doubt’. Likewise, the 11 th juror switches his vote as he “now has a reasonable doubt in his
mind.” The jurors are aware of the importance of investigating the evidence and henceforth acknowledge that their prior
certainties may have faults.
The 8th juror, through a stage direction that mimics his state of mind and are shown that “this is the problem that has been
tormenting him. He does not know and he never will.”
** Based on ‘reasonable doubt’, a verdict of ‘not guilty’ is reached, which Rose suggests is the only correct verdict under these
circumstances. AS the evidence is not conclusive, the jurors are not able to confidently prove the boy’s guilt. Critical to the “not
guilty” verdict is the capitulation of the 10th and 3rdjurors owing to their vociferous opposition. The 10 th juror concedes that he has
been outmanoeuvred by the “smart bastards” precisely because he must recognise that his bigoted misconceptions cannot
prove the boy’s guilt. Likewise, the 3rd is forced to recognise the degree to which his personal vendetta interfered with the
decision-making process. The reminder that “he’s not your boy”, finally shames him into concurring with the ‘not guilty’ verdict.
The deconstruction of these obstacles finally paves the way for an honest and just outcome. The unlocking of the door and the
knife in the table – which was critical to the fact-finding process – suggest that prejudice has been dispelled. Thus Rose would
suggest they reach a fair and reasonable verdict.
It is unequivocal that the legal drama Twelve Angry men imparts the notion that ‘reasonable doubt’ is a portentous part of
America’s judicial system and it is of greater concern than the truth. Rose demonstrates this though the jury, a microcosm
representation of a cross-section of America, who works together to form a just, unanimous decision. The variety of symbolic
techniques show how Rose supports the ‘not guilty’ verdict and his view that ‘reasonable doubt’, if applied rigorously and
insightfully, can expose personals aspects and agendas that may conspire to affect a fair trial. Ultimately, Rose reveals he is less
concerned about the guilt or innocence of the accused but that a vote of ‘reasonable doubt’ is better than wrongly putting an
innocent man to death and acts as a safeguard in the justice system.
The jury of Twelve Angry Men begins its deliberations with a vote of 11-1 in favor of guilty and ends 12-0 in
favor of not guilty. From this, we might conclude that the jury started with false certainty and deliberated until
they uncovered the certain truth. However, the jury is never able to establish whether or not the defendant is
innocent. Rather than uncovering certainty, their deliberations uncover doubt—enough doubt that they do not
feel that the evidence is enough to convict the defendant “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In fact, the play and the
jury deliberations might be described as not just the jury’s journey from certainty to doubt in terms of the case,
but also of the jury’s shift from looking at the world with certainty – certainty about what is true and certainty
presented as truth and of the rightness of one’s own perspective.
Only Juror Eight has any doubt about the boy’s guilt after the first vote. The rest think much like Juror Twelve:
“After six days, he doesn’t know. In six days I could learn calculus. This is A, B, C.” These jurors want certainty,
because doubt is uncomfortable and scary, and might make them miss Christmas dinner. Doubt doesn’t get you
answers or closure. As one jury member puts it to Juror Eight: "Suppose you talk us outta this and the kid really
did knife his father?" Yet, as the jurors delve into their deliberations, evidence that seemed solid comes into
question, and we hear less about how the jurors want to go home quickly.
Once they are all taking the evidence seriously, prompted by Juror Eight, the jurors have to start to worry about
the unreliability of the witnesses, like the old man and the woman across the tracks. For Juror Three, who is
certain of the defendant’s guilt, the eyewitnesses are infallible, even after doubt is raised over whether the old
man downstairs or the woman across the El tracks could possibly have seen and heard what they said they did.
For jurors like Juror Five, though, the old man’s testimony leaves them in a muddle—while Juror Five is not
convinced that the old man lied, he has to acknowledge that there is doubt about whether the old man heard
and saw what he said he did, and Juror Five is the third one to change his vote. Although the slow movement of
jurors to the side of “not guilty” may seem like steady progress towards greater certainty in light of
consideration of the evidence, the jurors who change their minds do not express certainty in their new vote
either.
Interestingly, as the jurors begin to face and admit to the many reasonable doubts about the case, their
attitudes towards each other changes as well. At first, the jurors make blanket moral judgments about each
other and whole groups of people. Their certainty about the truth of their own perspectives makes them hard
and unkind to each other. Yet as they admit to doubts about the case, it seems almost as if those doubts cause
them to soften their stances, to admit that their initial perceptions might have been wrong about more than just
the case. The principles each juror felt certain about going into the case are shaken not only by the arguing and
the evidence, but because the jurors are forced to face the doubts that they have hidden behind their own
biases, prejudices, and irrationalities. As the jurors come to be more comfortable in admitting doubt, they cease
to treat other quite as much like categories or types and treat each other, instead, as individual people.
Murder in the first degree—premeditated homicide—is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts.
You've heard a long and complex case, gentlemen, and it is now your duty to sit down to try and separate the
facts from the fancy. One man is dead. The life of another is at stake. If there is a reasonable doubt in your
minds as to the guilt of the accused . . . then you must declare him not guilty. If, however, there is no
reasonable doubt, then he must be found guilty. Whichever way you decide, the verdict must be unanimous. I
urge you to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully. You are faced with a grave responsibility. Thank you,
gentlemen.
Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the
prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond aReasonable Doubt.
To establish guilt, the prosecution must present evidence to support two things—first, that the defendant (the person
accused of the crime) actually committed the offense in question, and secondly, that his or her actions were carried out
intentionally or in a negligent manner. Once all of the evidence has been considered, a judge or jury must then
evaluate the facts to determine whether the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
But what constitutes reasonable doubt? To put it simply, the evidence must be so convincing that no reasonable
person would ever question the defendant’s guilt. It is not enough to believe he or she is guilty, or to think the person
“probably” committed the offense in question. It does not mean, however, that the prosecution must eliminate all doubt.
Rather, after all facts are considered, the logical conclusion must be that the person is indeed guilty; some
“unreasonable doubt” may still exist.
Reasonable Doubt Definition:
A threshold of proof in criminal cases in most modern criminal law systems which requires the trier of fact
to be sure, not certain, of the accused's guilt, before convicting.
A classic definition of reasonable doubt is:
"Reasonable doubt is not mere possible doubt. "It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of
all the evidence leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral
certainty of the truth of the charge."
Basically if there is any doubt about the guilt of the defendant than the jury must ere on the side of the defendant. The
8th juror is the first to bring up reasonable doubt.