Twelve Angry Men Doubt and Certainity

In ‘Twelve Angry Men’, Rose shows that doubt is an easier state of mind than certainty
‘Twelve Angry Men’ a play written by Reginald Rose, set in the summer of 1955, illustrates and performs the story of a Jury who are ‘faced with the grave responsibility’ of deciding a young boy’s fate, that is his guilt or innocence of the murder of his father.   Rose focuses on two themes that are strongly encountered throughout the play; they are ‘doubt’ and ‘certainty’.   Throughout the play Rose shows us how eventually doubt will erode into certainty, this is evident as by the end of the play not one of the Jurors has been able to maintain their certainty, therefore suggesting doubt is an easier state of mind.
Throughout the play Rose shows how a position of doubt is actually stronger than a position of certainty.   At the beginning of the play the Judge declared that voting guilty meant the boy was accused of the murder, and voting not guilty simply meant you have ‘reasonable doubt’.   To be certain means to prove facts, where as to have ‘reasonable doubt’ means to just introduce reasonable possibilities.   This alone shows how doubt can be stronger than certainty, as proving facts is a lot harder than suggesting prospects to the case. This is in fact why Juror 8 was a stronger and more persuasive Juror than Jurors such as 3 and 10. Juror 8 did not have to prove anything because either way he was not certain; however Juror 3 and 10 had to prove as they were the opposite.   The position of certainty came across weak in contrast to the position of doubt, this is evident as Juror 3 and 10 especially, based the vast majority of their vote on preconception of the case and the boy, calling the boy ‘a dangerous killer’ and generalising him stating ‘the way they are, angry, hostile’.   The 3rd and 10th Juror had trouble persuading the others, as the only facts they had to prove where facts already known knowledge to the other Jurors.   Juror 3 states ‘You can throw away all the other...