The Prosecution is correct in "12 Angry Men"
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
12 Angry men(1957) is a movie about a boy on trial for the murder of his father, 11 jurors see the boy as guilty, but the 8th juror disagrees, by the end of the film all 12 jurors vote not guilty, saving the boy from execution.
Here is a great cover of the case in question READ BEFORE EXCEPTING---
BOP is on me, as the juror number 8 points out the BOP is on the prosecution.
Any changes to the rating status, voting period, or time for argument will be addressed by me if I am okay with making said change.
I hope to have a debate on an amazing film.
again, read this- https://quizlet.com/54307343/twelve-angry-men-evidence-flash-cards/
if the teen is innocent. He didn’t kill his father right after threatening to kill him, but someone else did, with a knife identical to the one the teen owned and lost on that exact same night?
The old man lived downstairs under the room where the killing took place. At 10 minutes after 12 on the night of the killing, he heard loud noises. Said it sounded like a fight. And he heard the kid yell out "I'm gonna kill ya." A second later, he heard a body hit the floor. Ran to the door, opened it up, saw the kid run down the stairs and out of the house. Called the police. They found the old man with the knife in his chest. The coroner fixed the time of death around midnight.
He Lost the Knife
"There was so much wrong with the prosecution's assumptions. Firstly, the knife could be taken by another after the boy dropped it"
P.S-I have opted to underline my opponents statements. If some text is bolded and has quotes it’s a quote from the movie.
Now, this is quite a wild assumption I'd say. My opponent proposed that the knife the boy claimed to drop was found by another and used in the murder(which is quite convenient considering the knife used to kill the boy's father was left in his chest, so he'd need a way to explain why he no longer had the knife), but any way, it is quite unlikely that another person stole the boy's knife that he dropped and used that knife to stab the owners father. Remember, the boy has a motive to kill his father while a random guy who found the knife presumably doesn't. The motive being the father punching the boy on the night of the murder.
The Woman's Eye Sight
“the woman who 'saw it happen' across the street has doctor-prescribed long-distance vision loss”
It is never established in the movies dialogue that the woman wore glasses, it was merely an inference made by juror #9 because he saw 2 deep impressions on her nose, that he thought would only result from eye glasses. But the woman even testified with her glasses off, why would she go to court as an eye witness to a murder and not wear her glasses presuming she's short sighted as you claim. Also, even at night the prosecution proved you could look through an el train and see what was happening on the other side.(Source)
“If you say his alibi is fake based on no one saying they saw him there why will you trust a woman with severe short-sightedness to be able to look across her street and identify who did a murder”
As mentioned before, she wasn’t short sighted.
The woman has known the boy all of his life, I'd say it's fair to say she could 1, recognize his voice and 2, recognize his face.(Source)
“She had apparently been woken up from sleep by the screams, so why would she have immediately worn her glasses to look across the street”
The movies states the following--”Here's a woman who's lying in bed. She can't sleep. She's dyin' with the heat. She looks out the window, and right across the street she sees the kid stick the knife into his father. The time is 12.10 on the nose. Everything fits.”
So she was well awake and most likely looked outside casually and saw the murder, I frankly am not convinced the woman wears glasses, she didn’t even wear
But the Man Couldn’t Have heard the killing.
The man was a floor below the boy and his father, we’re talking about an elevated train a good distance away, the man is in his room not outside, there are walls separating the man and the el tracks which would muffle the noise pollution. I don’t get why he couldn’t have heard the boy say, “I’m gunna kill ya” when he
- The man could’ve easily heard the conversation, and saw the boy.
- The knife was certainly not picked up after it was dropped.
- The woman wasn’t short sighted.