The play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose features twelve different jurors who come from different backgrounds in a jury room. Their job is to “separate fact from fiction” and determine whether there is “a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the boy accused” (Act I) of first-degree murder against his father. The show shows that the criminal justice system is flawed, but men like Juror Eight can demonstrate that there is faith in the jury system. Juror Eight, a quiet and thoughtful gentleman 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 a reasonable doubt in the case and obtains acquittal for the 'defendant; 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 evil and bias in the justice system, there are jurors like Juror Eight who symbolize an optimistic future for the criminal justice system . plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Juror eight fights for justice against the prejudices shown by the other jurors, which gives the audience hope that even more jurors will fight for justice. It is obvious that the jury members had already made up their minds when they first entered the jury room. Yet Juror Eight “votes not guilty and convinces the others to look more closely at the evidence and testimony.” Although eleven other jurors voted for a guilty verdict, the eighth juror states that "it's not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy to his death without talking about it" (Act I), demonstrating that he is willing to consider reasonable doubt and fight for justice, regardless of whether the other jurors don't want it. Despite Juror Three being 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 she asks him if he is “her executioner?” (Act II), which shows that he is not afraid of having a disagreement with the other jurors who are prejudiced against the suspect. Otto also challenges Juror Three on his knowledge of knife fighting when he asked him, "Doesn't that seem like an awkward way to handle a knife for an experienced knife fighter?" (Act III). By consistently proving jurors wrong, he shows that he is not afraid to fight for justice against prejudice. In Twelve Angry Men, Juror Eight proves that reasonable doubt exists and obtains acquittal for the defendant. Juror Eight explains to the other jurors that he is “not trying to make anyone accept other possibilities. He just says it's possible," Juror Eight is trying to prove that there is a possibility that the witnesses are unreliable, and is trying to convince the other jurors to discard their close-mindedness. Another reason why Juror Eight gets the acquittal of the accused is because it describes to the ignorant that their job as jurors is only to find reasonable doubt and "whether the boy on trial is guilty or not" (Act II), not to prove him innocent reasonable doubt in all witness 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 that he heard the boy say "I." I'll kill you,” is an unreliable source because he must have heard the guy yelling it on an El train and that's almost impossible Ha;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 bedroom to the front door. Another disproven testimony 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 has the exact same one, which convinced some jurors that the shopkeeper could lie. Subsequently, Jurors Five and Eight find reasonable doubt about how their father was killed. Since the boy grew up in a poor neighborhood, he should be skilled in knife fighting, and an experienced knife fighter would not create a wound like the victim's. Finally, the jurors have a reasonable doubt about the fact that it is not possible that the woman witnessed the murder from the last two windows of a moving El train when she had not had time to put on her glasses. It is almost impossible for her to see clearly in the dark, especially since she wears thick bifocals. Most jurors used the witness's testimony as a reason to decide on a guilty verdict. However, once reasonable doubt was found in the witness's statements, the defendant had a better chance of being acquitted. Opinions number eight on the trial are all based on compassionate and reasonable decisions and this symbolizes an optimistic future for the penal system. During the show, the eighth juror works hard and makes sure that all his decisions "are based on facts." At the beginning of the show, Juror 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 little while” and feels he “owes the boy a few words.” (Act I) whether there is a reasonable doubt or not. Juror eight wants to make sure the other juror's opinions are also compassionate and reasonable. Eight considers all the possibilities for there to be 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 one" (act I), eight wants the others to see that there are reasonable doubts behind this case. Even though Otto 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 defendant is guilty; This shows that Juror Eight is a compassionate person whose opinions are based on reasonable decisions and wants other jurors to feel the same way. Otto gives the public confidence in the jury system by showing that he is polite, fair, and not afraid to disagree with others. The second juror believed that the defendant was guilty simply because no one proved otherwise, but number eight counters his statement by explaining that “No one has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The accused is not obliged to open his mouth” (Act I), this shows that there are jurors who are educated on what their job is and how the judicial system works. Furthermore, Otto demonstrates that he is educated 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 anyone else's motives" (Act II). Without juror eight informing the other jurors of this information, the boy would have been convicted because the jurors did not know how the justice system works. Otto also discusses how the boy's defense lawyer "seemed uninterested" in the case, exposing how lawyers are overworked and don't have time to adequately defend their case..