In the beginning of the play, "Twelve Angry Men" the twelve jurors and the foreman of the jury sit around a table and discuss what verdict they want to give to a 19 year old boy who is accused of stabbing his father in the chest and killing him. All of the jurors agree that the defendant is guilty except for juror #8. Juror #8 believes that the defendant is not guilty despite all of the evidence the court has that points toward the 19 year old being guilty of killing his father. All of the other jurors come at him saying things like " The boy lied and you know it" and "How do you like this guy?" I was wondering the same questions in my mind until juror #8 brought up a good point. He has a doubt in his mind that the boy killed his father (or should be put in jail) because he said "Ever since he was five years old his father beat him up. He used his fists." There could be a whole other reasoning behind this killing. Yes, there is really no excuse to murder your own father, but they shouldn't just look at the kid, think he's a cold hearted criminal and send him away to prison. This 19 year old has an untold story. He grew up in a slum his whole life and spent his whole childhood getting beat up by his father. Children who grow up in that kind of environment usually grow up to get into some sort of trouble and usually tend to be violent. This can make a jury see the murder from this 19 year old's point of view instead of just assuming that he's a bad person and deserves to be put in jail. If juror #8 never pointed this out to the rest of the jurors, no one would have stopped to take the 19 year old's life and all of the bad things he has went through from a young age into consideration and he would have just been thrown in jail for the rest of his life.
Do you agree with juror #8's point? Would you feel bad for the 19 year old or do you think he is just guilty and deserves to be put in jail for murdering his father?
I feel like its not just about feeling bad for the boy, but maybe just trying to understand him and give him the benefit of the doubt. Juror Eight was the most understanding of the 12. He was able to put his own personal opinions aside, look at the facts, and decide the boy was not guilty. I thought the boy should have been deemed not guilty just because there was not enough to say he was guilty.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the boys up bringing did have an impact on his behavior. His childhood abuse may have been a trigger for him to kill his father but that doesn't mean he would ever be of any harm to anyone else. So I agree with juror number eight for having some sympathy that the boy should not be deemed a bad person.
ReplyDeleteI believe that no matter what the kids deserves the benefit of the doubt and his story needs to be told. A defendant is innocent until proven guilty right? so he should be able to put his side in and he shouldn't be looked at like an evil person right away.
ReplyDelete