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”.
These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3. 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.” With selfish attitudes like this, it was unlikely that Juror 10 would be interested in the truth behind the evidence and the case itself.
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.” Building on the idea that Michael hated his wife, Anderson also cast him as sexually deviant. Over the protests of the defense, Judge Lott allowed the district attorney to show jurors the first two minutes of Handful of Diamonds, the adult video that Michael had rented, under the pretext that it established his state of mind before the murder.
Danforth and Parris finally realize that Abigail Williams lied to them and the court. Readers can conclude he is selfish when he says, “You misunderstand sir; I cannot pardon these when twelve are already hanged for the same crime. 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".But here cobb tries to justify his argument saying that he didn’t mean it and it was outburst by the condition(external attribution)(0:59:15). So this is an example of the actor observer bias too. Fundamental Attribution Error "Bright?
The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror. 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. Just as Shakespeare did it with Macbeth, Achebe gives Obi a similar story.