Loss Of Innocence In 12 Angry Men

In the play,”12 Angry Men,” the relevance of the ways of knowing emerge as everyone tries to debate on whether the boys is guilty or not. The boy is found guilty under the eyes of the jurors and the subjects compromising the courtroom. This is a result of, the witnesses providing explicit declarations against the boys innocence. In fact, the boy is on trial because of potential murder towards his father and is subject to a death sentence if the jurors do not prove his innocence. Although, the jurors are not aware of augmenting the ways of knowing by examining and reasoning throughout the meeting, they prove the boys innocence by incrementing the ways of knowing as a source of knowledge.

To begin with, every juror is convinced

that the boy is guilty except juror #8, due to their reasoning. Further, they consumed the witnesses declarations and found it was feasible to believe. To add on, their total apathy of being in the room lead them to commend the decision to prove that the boy is guilty. Moreover, other jurors implemented their emotions towards the boys sentence, in order to generate a decision. For example, Jurors number 3 and 10 had a strong dislike of the boys background, which lead them to classify the boy as being evil, disrespectful, and even wild. For instance, in juror # 10’s on words,” You know how these people lie it’s born in them. They do not need any big reason to kill someone no sir, they get drunk.”(Juror # 10) After analysing this quote, Juror # 10 expresses his hate towards people in slums, in which he intuitively assumes that the boy is the same as the other people living in the slums. Also, Juror # 10 makes it clear that he is doing a favor towards the country by ordering his execution because he feels that people like these should not be excused nor allowed to reconcile. Furthermore, the play creates an allusion between Juror #3 and Juror # 10. To add on, both jurors are closely similar and are both convinced that the boy is guilty. They are still as rocks when it comes to accepting the other jurors opinions towards the boys innocence. Notably, juror # 3 says,”I will kill umh, I will kill umh.”(Juror # 3) Here juror # 3 expresses his anger towards juror #8 in which he declares that he will kill him, but actually he did not mean it. This is significant because juror # 3 was proving that if the boy said that he actually meant it, and if everyone says that statement, everyone means it. Therefore, his declarations tumble down and his basis is no longer seen as strong and invincible. Indeed, this is significant by showing other Jurors that they should be open minded about the boys future, but it also shows that the jurors should not trust the words of juror # 3.

Juror # 8’s faith towards the innocence of the boy throughout the play, plays a vital role in convincing the other jurors that the boy is innocent. As soon as the jurors step into the room, they are convinced that the boy is guilty. They use every single way of knowing to believe that
the boy is condemned to death.

For example, they had faith in the witnesses declarations. Some even questioned,”How can they repeal oath?’’ In addition, Juror #2 relies on his intuition to settle his decision. When asked he says,”I just think he is guilty.”(Juror #2) Juror # 5 relies on his memory to determine whether the boy is guilty or not. For instance, all he says is,”I lived in a slum.”(Juror # 5) Here juror # 5 debates in his mind whether the boy should be guilty or not. He draws connections between the boy and him by analyzing his own past times in slums. To move on, All the jurors use sense perception during the beginning to acknowledge the situation. They see and hear the witnesses declaring their statements under oath, in which allows them to trust them. Nonetheless, language is a big factor in determining the boys innocence in respect with the case. For one, it allows the jurors to communicate and extract knowledge by understanding what others say. Without a doubt language is the basis for the extraction of the truth. Juror # 8 enters the room believing that the boy is not guilty. His reasons and different perceptions of the situations allows everyone to scrutinize the situation. For instance, once he proves that the old man could not have seen the boy down the steps and in addition he could have not heard him through the train, he introduces everyone the other side of the story by saying,” We have a reasonable doubt.”(Juror # 8) This statement circulates in

every jurors minds until they are fully convinced that the boy is not guilty due to the experimenting of facts.

The implanted knowledge that every single juror believed in, resulted in the quick decision to execute the boy, but as the meeting adjourned they changed their decisions.

Although, their reason seemed valid in their eyes they were invalid in other jurors eyes, especially in juror #8’s. Their trust in believing the witnesses declarations allowed them to reason the boys honesty, which ultimately allowed them to announce his guiltiness. Furthermore, juror #8 presented them a distinct way of viewing the decision, in where he questioned the oath of the witnesses. This allowed the jurors to consume a distinct perception of the situation, in where the boy does seem ingenuous. Juror # 11 changed his decision and defended the boy later on the play. In his own words,” Why is this such a personal trial for you.”(Juror # 11) Here he questions juror # 3 in which he ultimately wants to express why juror # 3 can not accept his defeat. To add on, Juror # 9 also contaminates the pursuit to acknowledge his innocence. He uses sense perception to bring out a powerful point. He asks juror # 4,” Don’t you feel well?” Here he introduces the glasses as a vital point, he questions the visibility of the women in her validness to see the boy murder his father. Further, Juror # 8 says,” It is logical that she wore eyeglasses to bed.”(Juror 8) Indeed, the plague to prove the boys innocence spreads and everyone accepts the important facts being presented and reasoned

with.

The ways of knowing are relevant in the play, in which they act as important elements for determining the boys future. All the jurors except juror #8 believe the boy is guilty due to the trust they have with the witnesses. Moreover, they are proved wrong by juror #8 and they are introduced to see the situation differently, and not just where the boy is guilty. All the elements and situations are examined closely to the point where they prove the boys innocence. Although, they are not completely sure of the boys innocence the jurors ultimately prove that anyone deserves another chance.