Not proven

Twelve angry men “A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a 19-year-old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are shaky include the height of the father, the woman who saw from the el train, and the old man who saw the boy running down from the stair. Based on these, the boy is not guilty. One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is the height of the

rebuttable presumption. This essentially means that because of CJs age, his behaviour is under the context of being ‘incapable or unable to form an intent to commit a crime’. Nevertheless, an assumption is made by a court that CJ is ‘innocent until proven guilty’. This statement is valid, unless and until the other party strongly contests the decision, and proves otherwise. Rebuttable presumptions are regularly linked with ‘Prima Facie’ evidence, which involves evidence that is set before the trial

Every day consciously or subconsciously we are following proven formulas without losing our integrity. It is important to copy those who have been successful because of our morality by standing true to our own belief system, and choosing to follow proven formulas every day. Every day I follow proven formulas without compromising my integrity, my belief system, or my unique personality. For example, when I go driving with my driving teacher I am following his instructions based on how he learned

Between 1945 and 1965 5 planes crashed and 10 ships sunk or disappeared in this area- Proven. Strange occurrences can happen outside of the Bermuda Triangle as well- Proven. To date, any plane that goes down in the triangle debris is never found- Proven. When in the triangle compasses stop working- Proven. Scientists believe that weather, topography, current, and methane gas can be reasons for these disappearances- Proven to be happenings but not for sure if the actual cause. Others who have made the

Reginald Rose’s play Twelve Angry Men brings together a group of 12 Jurors in deciding the verdict of the supposedly 18-year-old killer. As the play moves forward, Juror 8 brings up a lot of good points in explaining why the boy is not guilty. When the other Juror begins to side with Juror 8, Juror 4 stands hold on his opinion and provided some solid facts in why the boy is guilty. As the play progresses, Juror 4 has proved himself to be a calm, independent, and an intelligent thinker. Or all the

Jury Member Opinion In the end, the creature was convicted for 2 out of the 3 charges it was being prosecuted for. Personally, I do not believe that the creature was guilty for 2 of the charges but I was overruled by the other members of the jury for the manslaughter charge. In my head, as the creature grew in intelligence, the more guilty the creature became because at that point the creature should know what is considered morally right and wrong. I agree with the ruling of the first degree kidnapping

everyone votes guilty; then, it’s over and he’ll vote guilty, but another juror votes not guilty. So, they argue for awhile until a point is brought up that the knife the murderer used was unique, and that only the boy could have used it, but that was proven false when Juror 8 pulls out an exact copy of it. After that another

guilty. Juror three and eight, the protagonists of the play, try to convince all that the killing of the boys father was innocent. The meaning of Twelve Angry Men, is acceptance, which can be achieved when one gives another a chance before being proven guilty to innocent. Throughout the play,

Stingray 1NC Judge you should vote for Negative because we are the team worth voting for. First off if you listen closely to the points affirmative is trying to prove, when they bring up racial profiling this same exact argument is used in drones.Can you just accept that or is it time to come up with something fresh. They said that stingray devices hurt democracy and the law enforcement uses stingray devices illegally. This is completely false! They gave no evidence to support the idea that the law

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, on an island, without adult supervision, a little boy was murdered. But this case isn’t about that little boy, this case is about a little boy who is still alive and breathing. The prosecution is here to tell you that this 12 year old boy belongs in prison, possibly for up to 10 years, robbing him of his remaining childhood. Ralph has been accused of voluntary manslaughter. He has been accused of, in a fit of passion and fear, speeding Simon’s departure from this