Analysis Of Juror 8 In 12 Angry Men

Decent Essays
To know is to be without reasonable doubt. When I hold up two fingers on each hand, I know that I am holding up four fingers. It doesn’t matter that numbers are created by men, numbers themselves are so widely accepted that they have become part of nature. If I were to create my own way of counting, it would only strive to match the perfection of numbers. There is no other way to describe amount with such precision or certainty as numbers. I make this same argument for time. While a construct, time has become so embedded into nature that no one can deny its validity. I know that my watch says it is not five o’clock yet because of my knowledge of numbers. However, whenever my boss fires me because I show up when their clocks say it is seven-thirty, I can’t deny their validity. Validity lies in the context and the present, which are two of the most real things I can think of. I have no reason to doubt that three plus two is five or that I have spent two hours so far on this essay. I know these things because I can’t deny that a set of 2 apples and a set of 3 apples makes 5 apples or that I started this essay when my working clock said 12:30 and now it is 2:30. When arguments are made, however, is when knowing is truly able to emerge. Juror 8 in 12 Angry Men has the job of convincing the other jurors through different means of logic that a boy is innocent. Juror 8 has no reasonable doubt of the boy’s innocence. In his context, which is the court of law, this legitimizes
Get Access