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)
Juror Ten announces his intentions very early in the play. He speaks loudly and forcefully from the beginning, clearly showing his racism and prejudice towards the boy. Juror 10 quickly votes guilty and asserts that the defendant cannot be believed because “they’re born liars”. Additionally, he claims that the “kids who crawl outa those places are real trash.”
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
Though much of Elizabeth’s testimony had felt “almost rehearsed,” jury foreman Mark Landrum told me, her disgust for Michael in that moment had been palpable. “From that moment on, I didn’t like Michael Morton,” Landrum said. “I’m assuming the entire jury felt that way too. Whether he was a murderer or not was still to be determined, but I knew that I did not like him.”
It is not just” (Miller 129). Mr. Danforth refuses to pardon the condemned not because it is unjust but to save his reputation. Mr. Danforth knows he will look like a fool, he put his
12 Angry Men:-Psychological Behaviour Analysis Signs Of attributions There were many examples of attribution errors and biases in the movie. For example (an actor observer bias) the kid (Victim) is known to have yelled "I'm going to kill you" on the night of the murder. Cobb says no one would threaten to kill anyone unless he mean it (internal attribution)(0:46:25)&(0:46:45) .But after some time Fonda involves cobb into some argument and indirectly makes him yell "I'll kill you".
This process continues throughout the course of the movie, and each juror’s biases is slowly revealed. Earlier through the movie, it is already justifiable to label juror 10 as a bigoted racist as he reveals strong racist tendencies against the defendant, stating his only reason for voting guilty is the boy’s ethnicity and background. . Another interesting aspect of this 1957 film is the “reverse prejudice” portrayed by juror
Juror 3: He is an impulsive, humourless and extremely opinionated character whose own conflict with his own son caused him to take the case personally. Being a Controller (intuitor/judger temperament) with low emotional stability and high in competitiveness, he displayed his ‘bull’ tendency when other Jurors do not share the same opinions as him. This can be seen during the many times in the movie where he happens to have a conflict with Juror 8 over the difference in their view. This relationship of theirs is denoted by a zigzag line in the sociogram. His Type A personality clashes with majority of the Jurors as he uses
The book opens with Obi’s trial, where he is charged with corruption; by accepting a bribe. Also, Achebe indicates that everyone was shocked at Obi’s current situation, including the judge, who is filled with disbelief as he says "I cannot understand how a young man of your education and brilliant promise could have done this," The plot then backtracks to the period when Obi appeared to be a man of steel in his resolve to remain pure and incorruptible. And after searching for the fatal flaw that causes his downfall, the most apparent and stand-out cause is his EGOTISM. Obi is portrayed to be a prime example of a tragic hero.
“Black Men and Public Space” by Brent Staples Stereotyping can have serious affects on those afflicted. Staples writes about how a move away from his hometown changed his view of himself in seeing how others viewed him. He wants people, white people and women in particular, to stop presuming the worst in black men.
The main priority is to discuss the defendant’s innocence or guilt. By keeping the subject of discussion on the boy, Juror Eight, has an easier time convincing the rest of the jury that he is not guilty of the murder of his father. Juror Three, the main antagonist of Twelve Angry Men, doesn’t possess the perseverance that Juror Eight does. Juror Three doesn’t have a reasonable cause, which in turn weakens his argument. His bottled up emotions over his son become a problem later in the play when
During the trial, Dill is distraught by the way Mr. Gilmer, the prosecutor, speaks to Tom. Dill does not think anyone has the business to talk that way and “that old Mr. Gilmer doin’ him thataway, talking so hateful to him,” (265) made him sick. Mr. Gilmer interrogates questions like “Are you being impudent to me, boy,” (264) and acts toward Tom as if he is an untamed animal being trained and not a full-grown adult. Although Tom Robinson is treated harshly, Jem believes Atticus, the defendant lawyer and their father, has won the case because of the strong evidences presented and the fact that Tom is innocent (279). When the jury pronounce Tom guilty, Jem is exasperated and “his hands were white from gripping the balcony rail, and his shoulder jerked as if each ‘guilty’ was a separate stab between them,” (282).
American History X does a fantastic job of showing how even the most extreme offenders can have a change of heart and attempt to pursue the good in life. It is clear from the movie
Compare and contrast of Tom Robinson’s trial and the boy’s. Prejudice, racism, classes, apathy, justice. These are the wonders and horrors of the American judicial system. Both the novel “To Kill a Mockingbird” and the play “Twelve Angry Men”, portray those subjects in both similar and different ways. The trials in “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Twelve Angry Men” had many similarities, but all of those stemmed into differences.