Table of ContentsIntroductionAsking Questions and Seeking AnswersConclusion IntroductionEvidence is the process of asking questions in order to confirm an event, statement, or problem; it is the process of seeking truth through analysis. In the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a group of jurors debate and examine history and evidence repeatedly to reach a verdict. The reader is introduced to seven different and equally powerful forms of evidence and how these forms affect the outcome of the investigation. a decision. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get an original essay The seven forms of evidence are intuition, qualitative conjecture, personal experience, personal observation, witness or public testimony, qualitative conjecture, and conformation by authority or expertise, there are a wide variety of forms of evidence because they all offer 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 an ability and willingness to deal with others; discerning not only who and what but how and why; be attentive to the movements and intentions of language; embrace things actively and objectively” (Garcia-Martinez). The presentation of various forms of evidence in Rose's piece demonstrates an effective visual representation of these forms during their use and the consequences they have on others. To realize and appreciate the seven forms of proof, it is important to first understand that proof is not the truth but the beginning of the process of asking and analyzing the questions and answers that lead to the truth. Asking Questions and Seeking Answers The first form of evidence to be considered is "a person's intuition" which "involves something that one knows or considers probable from an instinctive insight that one he possesses, a strong sense that he develops, or a compelling sensation of confidence…” (Garcia-Martinez). In other words, this form of evidence relies on an "intuition" that in this case the jurors in the room cannot always logically or reasonably explain their thoughts, but they possess an intense emotion that tells them to continue debating when trying to decide the outcome of the play. verdict. An example of "a hunch" in Rose's play occurs when Juror Three begins to talk about the stabbing the eighteen-year-old boy is accused of against his father. He begins to talk about the angle of the cut in relation to the boy's height in relation to his father's: "Down and in." “That’s how I would stab a bigger man in the chest, and that’s how it was done” (page 55). After the jurors begin to discuss the injury in more complex ways, juror five steps in and says, "I guess it's conceivable that he could have done the injury, but it's not likely, not s "He had previous experience with sharpening knives, and we know that the child had a lot of experience with switch knives" (page 56). Juror Five had seen knife fights in the wasteland near his home when he was younger, therefore he had a "hunch" or "feeling" that the boy should be more experienced with knives than the wound shows. This moment in the play is an example of "his intuition" because Juror Three brought an idea to the group, thus motivating the other men to consider hisidea, then Juror Five analyzed and created an even stronger conclusion based on what was said plus his additional prior knowledge. Therefore, Juror Three's (Garcia-Martinez) “…intuitive suspicion or intuitive guess” forced him to voice his thoughts, which led to an answer about why the stab wound looked like it did. and why it was placed where it was on the body, thus he began the process of seeking answers to obtain evidence. A common form of proof is "confirmation by expertise or authority" because people respect others who are considered intelligent or powerful. This form of evidence "typically occurs when an individual considered qualified, distinguished, or respected, or as possessing knowledge that others do not or cannot, provides insight or information about one thing or another person” (Garcia-Martinez). credibility is achieved by someone after many years of experience studying, working or training in another particular field. This form of evidence is experienced when jurors eight and five discuss the electrical trails, where the murder is said to have taken place. Juror eight asked if any of the other men had lived near the electronic train tracks when juror five replied, "I lived near them" (page 32). None of the other jurors responded that they lived near the electric railroad tracks, making the following statements from juror five highly credible because he has a level of expertise, in this specific subject, that no one else does. no one else has because he is the only person in this group to have lived near the railroad tracks. This feeling of "authority" is something he only acquired after years of living next to trains and thus being the only person who could speak about this experience with personal insight. In this case, juror five was an expert because he had "acquired a level of experience, knowledge, insight, or skill in a particular area, and thereby used (or contributed to) certain systems of thought" ( Garcia-Martinez). In conclusion, with the confirmation provided by the experienced juror who lived near the railroad tracks, his subsequent conclusions regarding the matter in question were taken seriously by the other jurors because it gave him a sense of "authority" or authority. “power” in this area. moment because of his experience. Personal experience is a form of evidence that we often overlook because we do not realize that over time we become an “expert” in our daily activities. “Personal experience” is defined as “…a form of evidence that is neither scientific nor infallible, but rather involves large-scale events and everyday events that a person experiences individually, as well as consciousness or resulting wisdom. to live them” (Garcia-Martinez). To be clearer, a person's ability to remember and apply what they have experienced allows others to know that certain outcomes are possible. In a sense, because they have personal experience relating to the subject in question, they are almost a testimony to what could happen under certain conditions. circumstances. For example, jurors four, three, twelve and eleven relate to the boy accused of murder because they also had a difficult childhood and were victims of the poverty and struggles that the young man faced, they also did, but they did not become criminals. , not to mention murderers, because of this. As Juror Three stated, “I know what it is. I never killed anyone” (Page 16). So he remembers his childhood andapplies it to the boy's childhood and concludes that there is another possible outcome than falling through the cracks of society, but one can persevere instead of giving up. their difficulties define them. Although some jurors can understand the difficulties the boy went through, they make it clear that the path he chose to follow is not one they agree with and that the other men agree with them because that their daily difficulties brought them wisdom. Overall, it is essential when seeking the truth to realize that everyday experiences are a form of evidence, because these daily challenges and lessons breed wisdom that one can then use. future. Another form of evidence present in the play is “personal observation”. » which allows someone to use what they actually observed, noticed and recorded as evidence. Evidence of “personal observation” is defined as follows: “…involves “an observer,” or “a witness,” or “an investigator”—a person taking the time to actively note something or someone and perceiving "near the characteristics or conditions of someone or something" (Garcia-Martinez). In retrospect, this type of evidence is provided by someone who visibly saw something happen and can analyze the significance of those actions. Juror Nine provides a very compelling example of "personal observation" when he talks about the old man who testified regarding the murder. He observed that the old man was lonely, insignificant and incomplete, stating: "A man like this needs to be recognized, to be questioned, listened to and quoted only once." This is very important” (page 34). After juror nine observed the man during the trial, he questioned his testimony because he speculated that the man might have simply wanted attention and that his old age meant he had nothing to lose if anyone found out who he was. layer. The old man was the witness to the crime, or he says he was the witness, but a witness's credibility is due in part to his reputation in the community, his history of lying, and his character. The juror's prediction "served as the basis for speculation, theory, research, reason and knowledge" (Garcia-Martinez) and therefore his speculation was evidence because it helped the jurors discover that the old man may have provided testimony wrong. Overall, using personal observation as a tool leading to truth requires a lot of focus, time, contemplation, and careful consideration. The most formal form of proof is “official or public testimony” and in this case the witness is often accompanied. with great credibility. This form of evidence is defined as “…the particular account (oral-written) of what happened or what someone said, or what someone did.” It depends on whether a person was actually present to observe an event, words or actions of another, or whether a person was themselves involved in the whole action that was taking place” (Garcia-Martinez ). In short, it is a statement, usually stated. in a legal setting, by someone who saw the action occur or participated in it, which gives them the credibility of being present at the time. As an example, jurors point to the old man's testimony that he saw the boy running after hearing him scream "I'm going to kill you!" When the man first gave his testimony, it seemed reliable because he went near the boy's house and was convinced he saw the boy running away after the sound of a falling body. The problem is that a testimony can be ruined if it is fueled by aselfish or personal motive, which the juror suspects because the man was old and assumed he wanted attention. Thus, this evidence is not always reliable, "although this form of evidence is compelling and convincing in our society, the testifier may have selective observation or memory, have selfish or personal interests, or omit certain information" (Garcia-Martinez). So, although "public or official" testimonies are generally concrete forms of evidence, it is important to remember that the origin of the testimony is essential in case they have ulterior motives and that testimony alone does not does not constitute concrete proof but the key to the truth. .The senses can detect the quality of something and, even based on incomplete information, can lead to a conclusion. Evidence called “qualitative conjecture” involves “…forming an opinion or conclusion on the basis of incomplete information relating to, or evaluated by, the particular quality of something – some overall or specific attribute or characteristic of a thing, like 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 typically use this form of evidence to generalize or stereotype others. Juror Dix makes a qualitative conjecture about the boy accused of murdering his father by stating: "You know how these people lie, I don't know. I have to tell you", "...they get drunk and bang, somebody is lying in the gutter", "No one blames them, that's just the way they are" and "Most of them, it's like they have no feelings" (Page 59) . . In this case, Juror Ten determines the boy's innocence because of what he believes to be his qualities and "drawn 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 it comes across as ignorant, racist, and biased. It is therefore fundamental to evaluate the person who constructed the qualitative conjecture because he or she may be critical and closed-minded. Although all of these previous forms of evidence are very convincing, the most influential, crude and beloved is the "quantitative conjecture", because in today's society, numbers mean everything. A “quantitative conjecture” is defined in the lecture notes as “…occurring when a person forms an opinion or conclusion based on incomplete information relating to, or measured by, the particular quantity of something – some global or specific attributes or characteristics. of a thing such as its size, frequency, weight, proportion, cost, duration, etc. (Garcia-Martinez). As noted, this is a powerful form of evidence, if not the most powerful, because statistics are used to help further confirm a "hunch" 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 entirely accurate. Juror eight asks his peers how long they think an elevated train would need to cross a given point. Juror eleven responds: “I would think about it in maybe ten seconds…” (Page 32) while juror eight reports: “An electric train passes a given point in ten seconds. This given point is the window of the room in which the murder took place” (page 32). He then also asks the other jurors to reconstruct the situation of the old man getting out of bed and.