Explain how the idea of 'reasonable doubt' particularly pertains to this case.
First of all we have to have an idea of what “reasonable doubt” is. From what I knew and picked up from the play, I think that if there is to be criminal conviction there has to be a detailed check of the evidence provided before the verdict is made. That means that the prosecution has to clarify their reasons and make absolutely sure that each person included in the decision making (jury) hasn’t got any reasonable doubt. In other words everyone votes guilty only when they are persuaded.
In our story of Twelve Angry Men we see that the reasonable doubt is one of the main if not even the most important theme of the play. The point of this idea could have been over as soon as it was made because only one of the jurors thought that there were some doubts over the case (8th juror) at the beginning. The case is about a boy killing his father, but we don’t know whether he actually did it or not. The only thing that the jurors in the end agreed on, as I’ll show now, is that they couldn’t vote guilty.
To be able to question the evidence, there firstly has to be some. The points presented to the jury were for example that a 45 year old woman claimed she witnessed the defendant stabbing his father. She watched through her window as the city's commuter train passed by. Another one was that An old man living downstairs claimed that he heard the boy yell "I'll kill you!" followed by something falling on the floor. He then witnessed a young man, supposedly the defendant, running away.
Before the murder took place, the boy bought a switchblade simmilar to the one that was presented as the murder weapon. Also when he was asked about his aliby he said that he was at the movies but could not remember the name nether the actors.
These were the facts that the jury was presented with and directly wanted to decide that the boy was guilty which would mean that he would be sentenced to death....