In these two critically-acclaimed movies, government ignorance is explored in distinct ways. In 12 Angry Men, a jury of 12 men is sent to determine the fate of an 18-year-old slum-raised Latino boy accused of stabbing his father to death. A guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. In Beasts of the Southern Wild we are taken on an adventure alongside Hushpuppy, an African-American six-year old, who lives on a poverty-stricken island called the Bathtub and whose father’s tough love prepares her for a harsh world. As completely opposite as these two perspectives seem, each represents opposing sides of social injustice and ultimately deliver similar messages.
Juror number 3 went off knowing that they’ll spend some time in the room debating whether the boy was the murderer of his father, along with the other jurors. The way juror number three was displaying in a way was that he was judging the boy since he was in the courtroom and mentioned he looked as guilty as ever, but this preconceived notion goes more into depth with the same juror commenting about his background. When someone has the mind of bias thinking, that person is entitled to only see the flaws of others and not the positive qualities one possess, yet can’t see their own mistakes committed noticed. As this continues, juror eight viewed this case and led some other jurors to think and dramatize the evidence they were given by the testimonies from what they saw. Little by little, the jurors start to change their opinion about the case of the young man and have been supporting juror eight by the facts he has stated in the room, yet juror three still wouldn’t reason correctly and thought the guy should convicted of the
In this strong statement, it’s clear that being smart is seen as unacceptable and disregarded. It being seen as an insult to you if you are intelligent makes you not be intelligent, and fit into the normal, wanted lifestyle that authorities enforced. Beatty also exclaimed to Montag that “Don’t give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology” (Bradbury 58) This gives you a perspective of Philosophy. Making it seem like it’s something dangerous and undesirable. Beatty giving philosophy and sociology a bad connotation, so that Montag is persuaded not to rebel, and society is not in the wrong.
This argument could have been justifiable only if the juror has some proofs of the argument to be true. 3) Juror 3: i) He generalized the kids of the new generation to be bad just because he had such one experience from his son. This is Hasty Generalization fallacy. ii) He also made a red herring fallacy during the demonstration of old man witness. iii) Fallacy of begging the question was made by him immediately as he has his entry in the room, claiming that, “everyone knows that he is guilty”.
When it comes to the different kinds of authority, having to use force or suggestion to follow an order is considered irrational authority while acting in the name of reason is known as rational authority. In the film A Few Good Men, Dawson and Downey blindly follow commands not only because it was their duty to, but due to the mind set they were trained in and the three social processes that created conditions in which moral thoughts against violence become weakened. By following an order from their superior, Dawson and Downey received punishment due to it being an unethical order, and Kelman and Hamilton effectively explain how their situation involves authorization. For authorization to exist, the subordinates are required to obey in the terms of their role obligations instead of their personal preferences (K & H 139). In the My Lai Massacre, Lt. Calley was originally charged with 109 killings because of an
Fallacies in 12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men- a 1957 film, rather a courtroom drama, is full of emotions represented in arguments and intellectual brainstorming. Directed by Sidney Lumet, the film is an example of intellectual art. The film is based the story of a 18-year old slum boy who was on trial for killing his father by stabbing him. The judges, after seeing all the evidences and witnesses, actually leave the decision to the jury, to decide whether the boy was guilty or not. Also, if the jury decides that the boy is guilty, he would have to face the electric chair.
Eleven men found the boy guilt, while juror eight was the only man that wanted to review the case over again to make sure the jury was making the correct decision. All eleven jurymen were set on the boy being guilty and were trying to convince juror eight that he was guilty. Juror eight held his ground and convince the men to look over all of the evidence. Juror eight brought out the files, acted out different situations and the murder scene. The men went back and forth for hours fighting about whether or not the boy was guilt of killing his father Slowly one by one the jurors changed their mind from guilty to not guilty.
‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.
Many jury instructions on the issue of the burden of proof invite nullification arguments. According to these instructions juries must find the defendant not guilty if the case has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely the jury should find the defendant guilty if the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The permissive language "should" arguably allows juries to consider nullification arguments. It is also possible to receive a specific jury instruction on nullification, though most judges simply avoid the topic and do not tell jurors of their power to judge the fairness of the law and how it is applied as well as to judge the facts of a case.
Oedipus gets angry because Tiresias wIll not reveal the murderer of Laius. It is very clever to use this scene to show Oedipus’s temper because this side of him has not been shown. If they did not show this scene the audience/reader may not believe Oedipus is capable of the murders at the crossroads. It’s like Tiresias makes Oedipus angry on purpose so the audience/reader figures out the truth without him actually saying it. W. J. Verdenius quotes, “Tiresias is at once a traditionalist and an exceedingly clever man.” Tiresias’ ironic behavior and attitude towards revealing prophecy makes him symbolic to the
Juror Eight’s passionate opinion about the defendant’s innocence helps persuade the other jurors to change their view on the matter. The defendant faces the death penalty if the jury votes him guilty for the first degree murder of his father. Immediately after the first half of the trial the jury converges in the conference room and takes their first vote. The main protagonist, Juror Eight, becomes clear when the results of the first vote are told to be eleven to one in favor of guilty. Juror Eight states, “It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (Rose 231).
The leaders deceive the members into believing that they belong and give them that feeling of being wanted. However, once the leaders have drawn them in enough, they demand all mental devotion or there will be consequences. Another researcher describes that if Ron [cult leader] felt like verbally harassing a member for not obeying or just simple because he was able to, he would and this was done by making he/she stand in front of a crowd and proclaiming what was wrong with that member (Gard). This statement proves that psychological abuse is real threat among religious cults. This is taken from an ex-cult member/ mental abuse survivor 's real account, and he states that this is just the beginning of the abuse.
Twelve Angry Men Reginald Rose’s film, Twelve Angry Men, revolves around the decision of twelve white male jurors to confine a young Hispanic man behind a prison cell. Initially juror eight stood alone as he put forward a notion that human memory is fallible, and could not be relied on as evidence. Through the jurors, Rose captures the essence of what`s wrong with the American justice system. Rose pursues the concept of prejudice, status, racial discrimination, arrogance, justice and the need for it to be served in the justice system. During the course of the film prejudice was instrumental in acting as the defining factor to prove whether the boy was guilty or not.