How Are Boys Guilty In Murder Trial
A 16-year-old boy Found Not Guilty in Murder Trial
Twelve men from all walks of life were gathered in a small room to make a life-or-death decision of a 16-year-old boy on suspicion of murder of his own father. Eleven of twelve jurors were strongly convinced that the boy is guilty based on the evidences that suggest the boy is guilty. However, one of the jurors had reasonable doubt about it and started to convince the others. They started to look at the case and evidences precisely again, and discovered that those evidences are incorrect.
The testimony of witnesses was a subject of debate among the jurors. The old man, who lives in the same apartment, testified that he heard the boy shouting out at his own father, “I’m going to kill you”. However, one juror found out that the apartment is near the el train. We know that no one can shout it loudly enough to be heard over the noise of the passing train. Even if the old man actually heard the boy screaming such words like that toward his father, we do not know if he indeed killed …show more content…
He said he went to watch a movie, but he couldn’t even remember the stars appeared in it, any story, or even the title. He had no sufficient alibi, as far as we know, to prove his innocence. However, I think it is probably because the pressure and nervousness made him unable to think and say something. We all know that kind of feeling; when you are under pressure or when you are too nervous, your mind goes blank.
In conclusion, a 16-year-old boy, who was abused by his father for about 13 years, was suspected of the murder of his own father. However, the jurors pointed out that the testimonies are shaky- and possibly they are just lying- and the physical evidences does not prove that the boy stabbed his father. The jurors were all convinced that there is no evidence sufficient to prove that the boy is an actual murderer. Ultimately, they brought and found this boy ‘not
Twelve men from all walks of life were gathered in a small room to make a life-or-death decision of a 16-year-old boy on suspicion of murder of his own father. Eleven of twelve jurors were strongly convinced that the boy is guilty based on the evidences that suggest the boy is guilty. However, one of the jurors had reasonable doubt about it and started to convince the others. They started to look at the case and evidences precisely again, and discovered that those evidences are incorrect.
The testimony of witnesses was a subject of debate among the jurors. The old man, who lives in the same apartment, testified that he heard the boy shouting out at his own father, “I’m going to kill you”. However, one juror found out that the apartment is near the el train. We know that no one can shout it loudly enough to be heard over the noise of the passing train. Even if the old man actually heard the boy screaming such words like that toward his father, we do not know if he indeed killed …show more content…
He said he went to watch a movie, but he couldn’t even remember the stars appeared in it, any story, or even the title. He had no sufficient alibi, as far as we know, to prove his innocence. However, I think it is probably because the pressure and nervousness made him unable to think and say something. We all know that kind of feeling; when you are under pressure or when you are too nervous, your mind goes blank.
In conclusion, a 16-year-old boy, who was abused by his father for about 13 years, was suspected of the murder of his own father. However, the jurors pointed out that the testimonies are shaky- and possibly they are just lying- and the physical evidences does not prove that the boy stabbed his father. The jurors were all convinced that there is no evidence sufficient to prove that the boy is an actual murderer. Ultimately, they brought and found this boy ‘not