Fallacies In 12 Angry Men

1404 Words6 Pages

Complete description of all “Fallacies” in the movie “12 ANGRY MEN”: The film “Twelve Angry Men” involves a lot of logical fallacies, some of which are quite prominent and provocative. Like for eg. The fallacies which involve racism and bigotry of Juror #10 and the anger revealed which manifests into personal anguish by Juror#3. The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar …show more content…

You know, born in a slum. Mother dead since he was nine. He lived for a year and a half in an orphanage when his father was serving a jail term for forgery. That's not a very happy beginning. He's a wild, angry kid, and that's all he's ever been. And you know why, because he's been hit on the head by somebody once a day, every day. He's had a pretty miserable eighteen years. I just think we owe him a few words, that's all” – This clearly gives a reference to the fallacy of “Appeal to pity”. Time and again, he uses this fallacy so that other jurors could empathize and connect with the boy. 2) “He is just 18, he couldn't have possibly done such thing. “ “Supposing they're wrong...Could they be wrong? ...They're only people. People make mistakes. Could they be wrong? “ – Both the statements listed above involve use of the fallacy of “Begging the question” 3) “How come you believe the woman’s story, she is one of them too, isn’t she?” – This fallacy is what we call as Hasty generalization. According to him, since the woman who gave the testimony against the boy lives in the same locality as the boy, her testimony can also be doubted upon. He tries to convince other jurors with this seemingly inappropriate …show more content…

A kid kills his father. Bing! Just like that... It's the element... I'm telling ya, they let those kids run wild up there. Well, maybe it serves 'em right. “ “Look, these people're lushing it up and fighting all the time and if somebody gets killed, so somebody gets killed! They don't care! Oh, sure, there are some good things about 'em, too. Look, I'm the first one to say that. “ – He makes use of the fallacy of hasty generalization in both these statements. 2) “The boy don't even speak english properly “ -- Here he uses the fallacies of “Attack on the person” and “Irrelevant conclusion” which are definitely justified as we may think what has speaking proper English got to do with his testimony. There are several other fallacious arguments put forward by some other jurors as well, which can be summarized as follows: 1) Juror#7 : Some of his statements are: “Suppose the whole building fell off…” – This is a fallacy of “Irrelevant conclusion”. “The kid robbed, threw a rock to a teacher…” -- This fallacy is “attack on the person” or fallacy of “stereotyping”. He says, that just because this kid has had a bad attitude in the past, he is a criminal for sure. “He’s not guilty because I don’t think he’s guilty.” This is fallacy of “appeal to ignorance”. He thinks that the boy isn’t guilty just because he isn’t

Show More
Open Document