Mariela Zuniga
At the end of the play, the reader does not find out whether the defendant is guilty or innocent.
Discuss with reasons whether this is a strength or weakness in the story line.
“Twelve Angry Men” is a play that takes place in 1957. This play focuses on deciding whether the defendant, the boy, is innocent or guilty of the crime of stabbing his father to death.
The people of the jury hold the boy’s fate in their hands since they are the ones that decide if he is guilty or innocent. There are so many discussions between the people of the jury because their opinions change so often. When the case is first brought to court eleven of the twelve jurors were ready to deem him guilty of the crime without even holding a discussion, but after a …show more content…
All of these lengthy arguments make the readers interested to find out what the jury will decide in the end. Will the one juror be able to convince the others of the boy’s innocence? After reading the entire play, the author does not tell the readers whether the jury decided that the boy was innocent or guilty. At first this upset me because I was very interested to find out if he did in fact commit the crime but after thinking about it I think the play was made stronger by not including a set answer. Because the author did not come out and say if the boy was innocent or guilty, it let readers make their own choice. By letting readers make their own decision regarding the boy it does not upset anyone because each person can create their own unique ending. This makes the storyline stronger because it makes the readers pay more attention to the details so they can try to understand the plot for themselves. By deciding the ending on your own it ensures that any bias that the jurors could have had against the boy are left out.
Not finding out if the boy was innocent or guilty strengthens the play because it reflects how not everything is black and white. Committing a crime does not always reflect a
At the end of the play, the reader does not find out whether the defendant is guilty or innocent.
Discuss with reasons whether this is a strength or weakness in the story line.
“Twelve Angry Men” is a play that takes place in 1957. This play focuses on deciding whether the defendant, the boy, is innocent or guilty of the crime of stabbing his father to death.
The people of the jury hold the boy’s fate in their hands since they are the ones that decide if he is guilty or innocent. There are so many discussions between the people of the jury because their opinions change so often. When the case is first brought to court eleven of the twelve jurors were ready to deem him guilty of the crime without even holding a discussion, but after a …show more content…
All of these lengthy arguments make the readers interested to find out what the jury will decide in the end. Will the one juror be able to convince the others of the boy’s innocence? After reading the entire play, the author does not tell the readers whether the jury decided that the boy was innocent or guilty. At first this upset me because I was very interested to find out if he did in fact commit the crime but after thinking about it I think the play was made stronger by not including a set answer. Because the author did not come out and say if the boy was innocent or guilty, it let readers make their own choice. By letting readers make their own decision regarding the boy it does not upset anyone because each person can create their own unique ending. This makes the storyline stronger because it makes the readers pay more attention to the details so they can try to understand the plot for themselves. By deciding the ending on your own it ensures that any bias that the jurors could have had against the boy are left out.
Not finding out if the boy was innocent or guilty strengthens the play because it reflects how not everything is black and white. Committing a crime does not always reflect a