Index IntroductionAsking questions and seeking answersConclusion IntroductionEvidence is the process of asking questions to confirm an event, statement, or problem; it is the process of seeking the truth through analysis. In the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a group of jurors debate back and forth and repeatedly review the story and evidence to reach a verdict, the reader is presented with seven different and equally powerful forms of evidence and how these forms influence the outcome of the process. a decision. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayThe seven forms of evidence are intuition, qualitative conjecture, personal experience, personal observation, public witness or testimony, qualitative conjecture, and conformation of authority or expertise, there is a wide variety of forms evidentiary because they all provide different credibility and serve different purposes. Therefore, understanding that there are many forms of evidence allows the reader to understand that: “Asking questions and seeking evidence requires skill and a willingness to confront others; discern not only who and what but how and why; be attentive to language movements and intentions; embrace things in an active and objective way” (Garcia-Martinez). The presentation of different forms of evidence in Rose's work demonstrates an effective visual representation of these forms as they are used and the consequences they have on others. To realize and appreciate the seven forms of evidence, it is important to first understand that evidence is not the truth but the beginning of the process of asking and analyzing questions and answers that lead to the truth. Asking questions and seeking answers The first form of evidence to be reviewed is “one's intuition” which “involves something that one knows or considers probable from an instinctive intuition one possesses, from a strong sense one develops, or from some irresistible feeling of trust or confidence…” (Garcia-Martinez). In other words, this form of evidence is based on the “intuition” that, in this case, the show jurors cannot always logically or reasonably explain their thoughts but possess an intense emotion that tells them to continue debating when they attempt to decide the decision. verdict. An example of an “intuition” in Rose's play occurs when Juror Three begins to talk about the stabbing of his father that the eighteen-year-old is accused of committing. He begins to talk about the angle of the cut relative to the boy's height relative to his father's: "Down and in. So I would stab a taller man in the chest, and that's how it was done" (Page 55). after the jurors begin to discuss the wound in more depth, Juror Five interjects and says, "I suppose it's conceivable that he made the wound, but it's not likely, not if he'd ever had experience with knives." switchblade, and we know that the boy had a lot of experience with switchblade knives" (Page 56). Juror Five had seen knife fights in the vacant lot near his house when he was younger, therefore, he had a "hunch" or "hunch" that the boy should have more experience with knives than the wound showed. This moment in the show is an example of "one's intuition" because juror three contributed an idea to the group, then, motivating the other men to consider his idea, then juror five analyzed and created an even stronger conclusion based on what has been said and also his further previous knowledge. Therefore, Juror Three's (Garcia-Martinez) "...intuitive suspicion or intuitive hypothesis"forced to express his thoughts that led to an answer as to why the stab wound looked the way it did and why it was placed where it was on the body, therefore, he began the process of seeking answers for evidence. A frequent form of evidence is “confirmation by experts or authorities” because people respect others who are seen as intelligent or powerful. This evidentiary form “commonly occurs when an individual considered qualified, distinguished, or respected, or to possess knowledge that others do not or cannot, provides insights or information about something or another person” (Garcia-Martinez). credibility is gained by someone with many years of educational, work, or training experience in another particular field. This form of evidence is tested when jurors Eight and Five discuss the trail of where the murder is said to have occurred. Juror Eight asked if any of the other men had lived near the el tracks when Juror Five replies "I lived near them" (page 32). None of the other jurors responded that they lived near the EL tracks, which therefore makes Juror Five's following statements highly credible because he has a level of expertise, in this specific topic, that no one else has because he is the only person in that group that lived near the train tracks. This sense of "authority" is something he only gained from living on trains for years and therefore being the only person able to talk about that experience with some personal insight. In this case Juror Five was an expert because he had “accumulated a level or experience, knowledge, insight, or skill in a particular field, and thus used (or contributed to) certain systems of thought” (Garcia-Martinez). In conclusion, because of the confirmation provided by the expert juror who lived near the train tracks, his subsequent conclusions regarding the issue at hand were taken seriously by the other jurors because it gave him a sense of "authority" or "power" as a moment due to his experience. Personal experience is a form of evidence that we often overlook because we do not realize that over time we become “experts” in their daily activities. “Personal experience” is defined as “…a form of evidence that it is not scientific or infallible, rather, it involves the large-scale events and everyday occurrences that a person individually experiences, and the resulting awareness or wisdom that is gained from experiencing them” (Garcia-Martinez). To clarify, the ability to remember and apply what they have experienced allows others to know that certain outcomes are possible. In a way, because they have personal experience related to the topic in question, they are almost a testimony to what could happen in certain circumstances. circumstances. For example, jurors Four, Three, Twelve and Eleven refer to the boy accused of murder because they too had a difficult childhood and were victims of the poverty and difficulties that the young man also faced, but they did not become criminals. , not to mention murderers, because of it. As the third juror said: “I know what it means. I have never killed anyone” (Page 16). Then, he remembers his childhood and applies it to the boy's childhood and concludes that there is another possible outcome besides falling through the cracks of society, instead one can persevere instead of letting their hardships define them. However, some jurors can identify with the difficulties the boy has gone through, they make it clear that the path he has chosen to take is not one they agree with, and the other men agree with them because their daily difficulties have providedtheir wisdom. All in all, it is essential when seeking the truth to realize that everyday experiences are a form of testing because from these daily difficulties and lessons comes wisdom that you can then use in the future. Another form of evidence present in the theater performance is "personal observation". " which allows someone to use what they actually observed, noticed, and recorded what they saw as evidence. "Personal observation" evidence is defined as "...implies 'an observer,' or 'a witness,' or 'an investigator' - a person who takes the time to actively notice something or someone and to closely perceive the characteristics or condition of that someone or something” (Garcia-Martinez). In retrospect, this type of evidence is provided by someone who visibly saw something happen and can analyze the meaning of those actions. Juror Nine provides a very compelling example of “personal observation” when he talks about the old man who gave testimony about the murder. He observed that the old man was alone, insignificant and unfinished, stating: “A man like this needs to be recognized, to be questioned, listened to and mentioned only once. This is very important" (Page 34). After observing the man during court, Juror Nine questioned his testimony because he theorized that the man might simply have wanted attention and that his old age meant he had no nothing to lose if someone discovered that he was telling lies. The elderly man was the witness to the crime, or claims to have been the witness, but the credibility of a witness is due in part to his reputation in the community, to his history of lying. ​and to character. The juror's prediction "served as a basis for speculation, theory, research, reason, and knowledge" (Garcia-Martinez) and thus his speculation was evidence because it helped the jurors discover what the old man may have provided an erroneous testimony. Overall, using personal observation as a tool that leads to truth requires a considerable amount of concentration, time, contemplation and examination. The most formal of the evidentiary forms is "official or public testimony" and in this case the testimony is often accompanied with a considerable amount of credibility. This form of evidence is defined as “…one's particular account (spoken-written) of what happened or what someone said or what someone did. It depends on whether a person was actually present to observe some events, words or actions of another, or whether a person was himself involved in the entire action that took place” (Garcia-Martinez). In short, it is a statement, usually stated in a legal context, by someone who saw the action occur or took part in it, which is what gives them the credibility of being present at the time. To illustrate, the jurors refer to the testimony given by the elderly man that he saw the boy running after him and heard him shout "I'll kill you!" When the man gave his testimony for the first time, he seemed reliable, because he had gone away near the boy's house and was convinced that he had seen the boy run away after the sound of a body falling. The problem is that testimony can be tainted if fueled by a selfish or personal motive, which the juror suspected because the man was old and thought he wanted attention. Therefore, this evidence is not always reliable, “although this form of evidence is cogent and persuasive in our society, those who testify may have selective observation or memory, have selfish or personal interests, or omit certain information” (Garcia-Martinez ). So, although “public or official” testimonies areusually concrete forms of evidence, it is important to remember that the provenance of the testimony is essential in case they have hidden motivations and that a testimony alone is not concrete evidence but the key to the truth. The senses can detect the quality of something and, even on the basis of incomplete information, they can lead to a conclusion. Evidence called “qualitative conjecture” is “…forming an opinion or conclusion on the basis of incomplete information relating to or measured by the particular quality of something – some general or specific attribute or characteristic of a thing such as its existence, appearance, sound, smell, tone or mood” (Garcia-Martinez). In other words, someone draws a conclusion based on a person's characteristics or qualities, this can have a negative connotation because people usually use this form of evidence to generalize or stereotype others. Juror Ten fabricates a qualitative hypothesis about the boy accused of killing his father by stating that, "You know how those people lie, I don't know."I have to tell you," "...they get drunk and, bang, someone's lying in the mud ", "No one blames them, that's just the way they are" and "Most of them feel like they don't have feelings" (Page 59). In this case, Juror Ten determines the boy's innocence based on what he thinks are his qualities and "he drew from these a sort of observational judgment or reasoned conclusion" (Garcia-Martinez). In the case of juror ten he made a generalization about a certain group of people which then weakens his argument because comes across as ignorant, racist and biased, so it is critical to evaluate the person who constructed the qualitative conjecture because they can be judgmental and closed-minded. Although, all of these previous forms of evidence are very convincing, the most influential, believed and appreciated is the “. quantitative conjecture” because in today's society numbers mean everything. A “quantitative conjecture” is defined in the lecture notes as “…occurring when one forms an opinion or conclusion on the basis of incomplete information regarding, or measured by, the particular quantity of something – some general attribute or characteristic or specific to a thing such as its size, frequency, weight, proportion, cost, duration, etc. (Garcia-Martinez). As stated, this is a powerful, if not the most powerful, form of evidence because statistics are used to help further confirm an “intuition” or idea. Specifically, Jurors Eight and Five strategically use time values ​​to discover and present to the rest of the jurors that the time frame provided by the witnesses does not seem exactly accurate. Juror Eight is asking his colleagues how long they thought it took an elevated train to get past a certain point. Juror Eleven replies: "I would think about it for about ten seconds, maybe...". (Page 32) while Juror Eight reports: “An electric train passes a given point in ten seconds. That spot is the window of the room where the murder occurred” (Page 32). Then he also has the other jurors reconstruct the situation of the old man who gets out of bed and slowly approaches his window at the end of the corridor, where they discovered that the time indicated compared to the time actually needed did not correspond. As Juror Eight accompanied the other men on this path of discovery, he knew the effect his was having on their opinions because they could not argue with factual and statistical data: “Everything numerical is fundamentally measurable; it can be “experienced” to some extent, so it tends to be more highly regarded than anything experiential or personally observed” (Garcia-Martinez). In the end, all this juror's little attempts to shed light on the.