as to the extent is usually reasonable uncertainty
To what level is reasonable doubt an effective safeguard in the jury system? In the enjoy, Twelve Irritated Men Reginald Rose depicts ‘reasonable doubt’ as an incredibly effective defence in the jury system leading to saving the offender from getting sentenced. In the play the jurors are asked to determine whether the 17 year old youngster is ‘guilty’ of fatally stabbing his father beyond ‘reasonable doubt’ or not. Only Juror 8 takes on a pivotal part in acquainting the other 9 jurors about ‘reasonable doubt’ and through negotiations most suitable option bring it out of all testimonies and evidences shown by the prosecution.
Eventually ‘reasonable doubt’ leads all the other 11 jurors to abandon all the doubtful proofs in favour of the boy and provide the ‘not guilty’ decision. Throughout the play from the beginning juror eight is the merely one who votes ‘not guilty’ as he says, ‘It’s quite difficult for me to increase my hand and send a boy off to die devoid of talking about it first.
‘
This plainly tells us that he had gone through all the evidences and found those to be lacking whereas the rest of the eleven jurors had assumed that this was an ‘open and close case’ not having thought of some other chances. This can be obvious if he says towards the end with the play, ‘¦. we have an affordable doubt, and this is a secure which has substantial value in our system. Simply no jury may declare a male guilty except if it’s sure. ‘ These words of juror almost eight have a huge influence on the other jurors to vote with one voice ‘not guilty’ in favour of the boy. Following very prolonged discussions and re-enactments the evidences given by the old guy living on the ground floor and the woman across the alleyway who believed to have viewed the son stabbing his father when an el teach was transferring by are viewed as as strange and skeptical. The old man’s claim was rejected mainly because according to him it took only fifteen seconds pertaining to him to succeed in his entrance from his bedroom. Inside the re- achievement, both jurors 2 and 8 revealed that it was extremely hard for this man to protect the distance by his bedroom to the entrance in less than 40 one just a few seconds, which led to the expulsion of the older man’s evidence. The woman’s facts was refused because juror 9 mentioned the fact that as your woman had markings on her nose that evidently showed that she used glasses which in turn she don’t wear at the hearing.
This led to the prosecution camouflaging the fact from the jury which the woman normally wore spectacles thus producing her accounts dubious. Both these incidents do not show that the witnesses had been lying although do definitely put ‘reasonable doubt’ inthe minds of all the jurors to consider the boy’s scenario and give the ‘not guilty’ verdict. The murder system, the knife was greatly contested in the the courtroom. The exceptionality of the knife was making the boy appear to be doing committing the hideous crime of murdering his individual father. In order to prove this kind of juror almost 8 managed to buy a similar type of knife through the boy’s area shop demonstrating that it was not that unique. Juror 8 tells the jury that this individual doesn’t wish them to agree to his speculation but it could be a possibility. After seeing the exactly related knife the other jurors are informed about the undependability of the prosecution and the evidence. This incident plainly shows that juror 8 merely doesn’t wish to prove the boy’s innocence but he wants to put an acceptable doubt regarding the kid’s guilt for all the other jurors.
The boy’s alibi that he was on the cinema viewing a movie was greatly contested upon although here as well juror almost 8 brings reasonable doubt simply by showing it is understandable to forget this kind of details since the movies term under stress. He does this simply by cross asking juror four on identical questions. In summary, reasonable question is an effective safeguard in the court system since the kid’s life is sooner or later saved in Twelve Angry Men. As Sir Ruben Hawles’ The Englishman’s Proper, put it, echoing the middle ages theological custom, “let the conscientious juryman “tremble, lest this individual be “guilty of [the defendant’s] Tough.
Term count: 714.
one particular
