Twelve Angry Men Pt. 1

In the play, Twelve Angry Men, 12 jurors are forced to decide if a 19 year old boy is guilty or not guilty of killing his father. The vote must be unanimous. In the beginning of the book, 11 of the jurors vote guilty. They're all so sure that the boy is guilty but juror 8 refuses to vote guilty due to his reasonable doubt. We know juror 8 is against voting guilty when he said to the other jurors, "I don't believe that." Juror 8 tries to get other on board and realize the reasonable doubt in the murder case by using logic and having the jurors react the details of the murder to prove that the witnesses' stories cause reasonable doubt. Juror 8 is able to get juror 9 on board and the vote turns into 2 against 10 in favor of guilty. But juror 8 doesn't give up. This play connects to Oedipus because they both include a murder. The difference between the two is that throughout Oedipus, they look for the killer and need to be convinced that Oedipus is guilty, but in Twelve Angry Men, they're all convincing each other the boy is not guilty. Oedipus and Twelve Angry Men are similar in performing the same analysis process but only different due to the processes being in reverse of each other. Murders were preformed in both plays but the guilt is debatable and the outcome is different. I feel that the right actions were taken in both cases. I think Oedipus is guilty, while the boy is not guilty of killing his father.