“Reasonable doubt” is one of the recurring motifs in Twelve Angry Men. When the 8th Juror urges the other jurors to spend some time deliberating instead of immediately handing in their “guilty” verdicts, he does so on the principle that thorough deliberation is a moral as well as legal duty: “There were eleven votes for ‘guilty.’ It’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (Act I, 22). Throughout the play, the 8th Juror introduces ambiguity and alternate viewpoints into the trial evidence by reminding the other jurors of the multiple ways in which aspects of the case can be interpreted.

As the play progresses, more of the other jurors begin exercising doubt as well, and this doubt slowly erodes the other jurors’ certainty in the guilt of the accused. Since justice is “not an exact science” (Act I, 31), the play depicts doubt as a safeguard against the prejudices, impatience, and mistaken assumptions of the jury members. It is this gradual commitment to the concept of “reasonable doubt” that enables the jury to return a unanimous verdict of “not guilty” at the play’s close, thereby saving the life of the accused and ensuring the ultimate triumph of doubt over prejudice.