The Boy From 12 Irate Men Irreprehensible Or Censurable?

Culpable; justly chargeable with a particular fault or error. Was the boy from 12 Irate Men irreprehensible or censurable? The boy was thought of as censurable by most of the jurors at the commencement of the tribulation. All except for juror number eight, who confutes the boy is censurable. Such as, the knife a piece of evidence, his wording towards the jury, and the amount of posits made to confute facts. These details will prove the boy is censurable.
During the play, juror number eight pushes the jury to rule the boy as inculpable. The first thing he confutes is the uniqueness of the knife. He verbalizes that there are multiple knives identical to the one that the father was killed with. He makes everyone believe by pulling out a duplicate knife. However, juror number eight could be disqualified by the judge if he unearthed information regarding this manner. Jurors
He then, manages to convince the rest of the jurors drawing attention to something they hadn't considered afore. In order for the boy to be irreprehensible, by his claims, the events be as follows: the boy coincidentally yelled “I’m gonna kill you”. The geriatric man is authentically prevaricating about visually perceiving the kid flee, so he can get attention and feel paramount. The woman is withal being mendacious, she only visually perceived a blur since it was a dark night and she wore bifocals. The boy after going out to the movies, peregrinates home to find his father dead, is then queried by the police, and cannot recollect what he optically canvassed due to emotional stress. Coincidentally, the murderer utilized the same knife which he transpired to have lost within hours of verbally expressed death. Even