![]() Here, 8th Juror was able to put enough doubt into their minds, by challenging the evidence, to prove to them that they could not be sure enough to convict the defendant. In the American criminal system, those charged with crimes need to be proven guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' It is up to a jury to decide what that means and how to apply it in the case. Instead, they are only really able to prove that he is not definitely guilty, or "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." There are many reasonable arguments as to why he may very well have been guilty, but they ultimately don't prove strong enough to convict.Įxplain how the idea of 'reasonable doubt' particularly pertains to this case. Rose accomplishes this factual ambiguity by never actually allowing any of the jurors to definitively prove his innocence. ![]() How does Rose maintain doubt as to the defendant's guilt or innocence throughout the play?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |