Asking Questions and Seeking Responses
Evidence is the procedure of asking questions in order to verify an event, declaration, or problem; it is the procedure of seeking the truth through analyzation. In the play 12 Angry Guys by Reginald Rose, a group of jurors arguments backward and forward and evaluates the story and proof repeatedly to reach a verdict, the reader is introduced to seven various and equally effective evidentiary kinds and how these kinds impact the outcome of a choice. The 7 types of proof are one’s intuition, qualitative opinion, individual experience, individual observation, witness or public testimony, qualitative conjecture, and conformation by authority or expertise, there is a large range of evidentiary kinds because they all supply various credibility and serve differing purposes. Therefore, understanding that there are numerous kinds of proof allows the reader to understand that, “Asking questions and seeking evidence requires an ability and determination to face others; to discern not only who and what but how and why; to be mindful to the motions and intents of language; to embrace things in an active and unbiased manner” (Garcia-Martinez). The presentation of diverse forms of evidence in Rose’s play shows an efficient visual representation of these forms while they are being utilized and the consequences they have on others. To realize and value the 7 evidentiary kinds, it is important to first comprehend that proof is not the truth however the beginning of the procedure to asking and examining questions and answers that result in the fact.
The first evidentiary kind to be reviewed is “one’s intuition” which, “involves some thing that a person either understands or considers likely from an instinctive insight they have, from a strong sense they develop, or from some engaging sensation of trust or confidence …” (Garcia-Martinez). In other words, this form of evidence constructs from a “hunch” that, in this case, the jurors in the play can not constantly realistically or fairly describe their thoughts however they possess an intense emotion that informs them to continue debating when attempting to choose the decision. An example of “one’ instinct” in Rose’s stage play occurs when Juror 3 begins discussing the stabbing that the eighteen-year-old boy is implicated of versus his father. He begins to speak of the angle of the cut concerning the young boy’s height compared to his dad’s, “Down and in. That’s how I ‘d stab a taller man in the chest, which’s how it was done” (Page 55). Quickly after the jurors start talking about the wound more intricately Juror Five steps in and says, “I suppose, it’s possible that he might have made the wound, however it’s not most likely, not if he ‘d ever had any experience with switch knives, and we know that the kid had a great deal of experience with switch knives” (Page 56). Juror Five had seen knife fights in the uninhabited lot near his home when he was younger, therefore, he had “stoop” or “feeling” that the boy must be more experienced with knives than the injury revealed. This minute in the play is an example of “one’s intuition” since Juror Three contributed an idea to the group, thus, encouraging the other males to consider his concept, then Juror Five examined and developed an even more powerful conclusion based off what was stated plus his extra previous knowledge. For That Reason, Juror 3’s “… intuitive suspicion or instinctive guess” (Garcia-Martinez) required him to voice his thoughts which resulted in an answer of why the stab injury appeared like it did and why it was placed where it was on the body, hence, he began the process of seeking answers for evidence.
A frequent type of proof is “confirmation by know-how or authority” because people respect others who are viewed as intelligent or powerful. This evidentiary kind “frequently occurs when an individual who is taken a look at as certified, as distinguished or respected, or as having understanding that others do not or can not, provides insight or information about a thing or another individual” (Garcia-Martinez). This reliability is acquired by somebody over several years of experience in schooling, work, or training in another particular field. This evidentiary form is experienced when Jurors 8 and 5 are talking about the el tracks which is where it is said that the murder occurred. Juror Eight asked if any of the other males had lived near the el tracks when Juror Five answers “I’ve lived near to them” (Page 32). None of the other jurors responded to that they lived near the el tracks, which then makes Juror 5’s following statements extremely credible due to the fact that he has a level of expertise, in this particular topic, that no one else does due to the fact that he is the only person in that group that has actually lived near the train tracks. This sense of “authority” is something that he acquired only through years of living by the trains and thus being the only person to be able to speak of that experience with any individual insight. In this circumstances Juror 5 was an expert since he had actually “generated a level or experience, knowledge, insight, or ability in a specific field, and thus employed (or added to) certain systems of thought” (Garcia-Martinez). In conclusion, because of the confirmation provided by the knowledgeable juror that lived near the train tracks, his following conclusions concerning the matter at hand were taken seriously by the other jurors since that gave him a sense of “authority” or “power” because moment due to his experience.
Personal experience is a type of evidence that we frequently overlook since one does not understand that over time they become an “expert” in their everyday activities. “Personal experience” is defined as, “… an evidentiary form that is not clinical or infallible, rather, it involves the large-scale events and everyday incidents an individual separately experiences, and the resulting awareness or knowledge that is acquired from experiencing them” (Garcia-Martinez). To clarify, one’s capability to remember and use what they have actually gone through enables others to know that particular results are possible. In a sense, because they have personal experience connecting to the subject at hand they are nearly a statement for what could occur under specific circumstances. For instance, Jurors Four, Three, Twelve, and Eleven relate to the kid implicated of murder due to the fact that they likewise had a rough childhood and were victims of poverty and the struggles that the boy faced they did also, but they did not end up being criminals, let alone killers, due to the fact that of it. As Juror 3 stated, “I know what it’s like. I never killed nobody” (Page 16). Thus, he is recalling his childhood and it is applying it to the boy’s childhood and concluding that there is another outcome possible other than falling though the cracks of society, rather one can stand firm instead of letting their troubles define them. Although, certain jurors can relate to the difficulties that the kid has gone through they make clear that the course he has picked to take is not one they agree with and the staying males concur with them because their daily hardships provided them with knowledge. All in all, it is essential when seeking the fact to realize that day-to-day experiences are a type of evidence because these day-to-day hardships and lessons comes wisdom that one can then use in the future.
Another evidentiary type present in the phase play is “individual observation” which enables someone to utilize what they really have observed, seen, and registered what they have actually seen as proof. The evidence of “individual observation” is specified as, “… involves ‘an observer’, or ‘a witness’ or ‘an investigator’– a person putting in the time to actively keep in mind something or somebody and closely perceiving characteristics or conditions of that somebody or something” (Garcia-Martinez). In retrospect, this type of proof is provided by somebody who noticeably saw something occur and can analyze what those actions imply. Juror Nine supplies a really convincing example of “individual observation” when he is speaking about the old guy who supplied a testament concerning the murder. He observed that the old guy was lonely, irrelevant, and incomplete, mentioning, “A male like this requires to be recognized-to be questioned, and listened to, and priced quote just when. This is extremely crucial” (Page 34). After Juror 9 observed the male during court he questioned his statement because he theorized that the male could have simply wanted attention and his old age meant that he had nothing to lose if anybody discovered he was lying. The old male was the witness to the criminal activity, or he declares that he was the witness but a witness’ trustworthiness is due in part to their reputation in the neighborhood, history of lying, and character. The juror’s prediction “served as the basis for speculation, theory, research, reason, and knowledge” (Garcia-Martinez) and hence his speculation was proof since it assisted the jurors find that the old man may have supplied a faulty testimony. In general, utilizing individual observation as a tool that results in the fact takes a substantial amount of concentration, time, contemplation, and inspecting.
The most official of the evidentiary forms is “official or public testament” and in this instance that witness is often accompanied with a significant amount of trustworthiness. This form of evidence is defined as “… one’s (spoken-written) specific account of what happened or what someone said, or what somebody did. It hinges upon whether a person was actually present to observe some occurrence, words or actions of another, or whether an individual was themselves involved in the whole action happening” (Garcia-Martinez). In other words, it is a declaration, typically stated in a legal setting, by somebody that saw the action take place or participated in it, which is what supplies them with the credibility, that they were present at the time. To exemplify, the jurors reference the statement made by the old male that he saw the boy following he heard him screech “I’m going to kill you!” When the man initially offered his testament it appeared trustworthy, due to the fact that he did leave near the kid’s house and he was persuaded that he saw the boy running away after the noise of a body falling. The issue is that a testament can be spoiled if fueled by a self-centered or individual intention, which the juror’s suspected because the guy was old and supposed he wanted attention. Hence, this evidence is not always trustworthy, “though this type of evidence is engaging and persuading in our society, the one testifying can have selective observation or memory, have self-centered or individual interests, or omit specific info” (Garcia-Martinez). So, although “public or main” statements are usually concrete kinds of proof it is necessary to remember that who the statement originates from is important in case they have any concealed intentions and that a testament alone is not concrete evidence however the key to the fact.
One’s senses can identify the quality of something and, even based of insufficient information, can cause a conclusion. The evidence called “qualitative guesswork” is “… forming a viewpoint or a conclusion on the basis of insufficient details associating with, or evaluated by, the specific quality of something– some overall or some particular attributes or qualities of a thing such as its presence, look, sound, odor, tone, or its mood” (Garcia-Martinez). To put it simply, someone makes a conclusion based on a person’s attributes or qualities, this can have a negative connotation due to the fact that individuals normally use this kind of evidence to generalize or stereotype others. Juror 10 produces a qualitative opinion about the boy implicated of murdering his daddy specifying that, “You understand how those people lie, I do not require to tell you”, “… they get intoxicated, and bang, someone’s lying in the gutter”, “Nobody’s blaming them, that’s just how they are” and “Most of them, it resembles they have no feelings” (Page 59). In this case, Juror Ten figures out the young boy’s innocence because of what he thinks his qualities are and “drew some kind of observational judgement or reasoned conclusion from them” (Garcia-Martinez). In the instance of Juror Ten he made a generalization about a specific group of people which then weakens his argument due to the fact that it stumbles upon as ignorant, racist, and prejudiced for that reason, it is basic to examine the individual that constructed the qualitative guesswork since they can be judgmental and narrow-minded.
Although, all these previous forms of evidence are very engaging the most influential, thought, and valued one is “quantitative opinion” due to the fact that in today’s society numbers mean whatever. A “quantitative conjecture” is specified in the class keeps in mind as, “… taking place when one forms a viewpoint or a conclusion on the basis of insufficient info relating to, or measured by, the particular amount of something– some overall or specific characteristics or attributes of a thing such as its size, frequency, weight, percentage, expense, duration, and so on” (Garcia-Martinez). As stated, this is a powerful evidentiary kind, if not the most powerful, due to the fact that statistics are engaged to assist even more verify a “hunch” or concept. Specifically, Jurors 8 and Five strategically utilize time worths to find and provide to the rest of the jurors that the time frame provided by the witnesses does not appear precisely precise. Juror Eight is asking his fellow peers the length they believed it would take for a raised train to pass a provided point. Juror Eleven responds, “I would consider ten seconds, possibly …” (Page 32) while Juror 8 reports, “An el train passes a provided point in ten seconds. That given point is the window of the space in which the killing occurred” (Page 32). He then likewise has the other jurors reenact the situation of the old male getting out of bed and gradually approaching his window down the hall, where they discovered that the time given compared to the time it would in fact take did not match. As Juror Eight brought the other men along on this path of discovery he understood the affect his was having on their viewpoints since they cold not argue with accurate and statistical information, “Anything numerical is essentially measurable; it can be “proven” to some extent, so it tends to be more regarded than anything experiential or personally observed” (Garcia-Martinez). Ultimately, all this juror’s minor attempts to shed light on the intensity of this boy’s flexibility build up and ultimately change everybody’s viewpoints, even the most persistent of the guys.
All in all, to seek reality and comprehend that proof is just a stepping stone to finding reality one should have the ability to completely spot and understand the seven diverse types of evidentiary forms and their affects. This is shown in the stage play 12 Angry Guys by Reginal Rose where the reader witnesses how one juror asked concerns that required responses that did not come easily, hence, forcing others to discuss their viewpoint and realize that fault in it, resulting in justice for one boy. Seeing questions as a procedure to the truth, “… done to acquire explanation, gain insight, and develop response” (Garcia-Martinez) is important since it enables someone to more carefully examine the requirements they have in front of them and concern a logical and rational solution. This phase play often demonstrates the range of evidentiary forms and how they seek the reality, such as: “one’s instinct”, “verification by expertise or authority”, and “official or public testament” just to name a few. The characters in the play offer exceptional examples of each evidentiary form, but not just the type but its considerable and everlasting impacts on the people discussing. Because of Juror Eight’s fight to looking for evidence through questions, responses, and proof he had the ability to convince all the other men not just of innocence however of the importance of questioning the information that was presented to them instead of solely accepting it. Although, it would have been a lot more quick and uncomplicated technique to simply accept what the witnesses said and what the juror’s believed he dove into the proof, which brought them, ultimately, to the reality.