The best critical thinker from the film was juror 8 Our hero. He is thinking very critically from the beginning of the film being the only Non- Guilty voter during the preliminary vote. Despite all the evidence presented by the prosecutors and them painting a picture of a murderous eighteen-year-old who stabbed his father; juror 8 is looking at the background of this eighteen-year-old kid. He’s looking back at the kid’s background that has shaped him in some way by discussing what the kid had to endure during his upbringing which consisted of being kicked around, mother being dead since he was nine, being born in the slum, and spending some time living in an orphanage while his father was serving jail time for forgery. Juror 8 is trying to …show more content…
The slippery slope fallacy which is that one undesirable action will inevitably lead to a worse action. This fallacy was illustrated when the juror 7 who kept resorting to the kids previous crimes and run ins with the authorities throughout his life. Therefore, the kid was guilty due to his previous mishaps and crimes. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is because two things occur close together in time, we assume that once caused the other. The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy was illustrated throughout the film as the jurors rely on the witness’s testimonies about seeing the kid run out the building after the murder. One witness recalled seeing the kid running out of the house after hearing arguing and someone stating I’m going to kill you then a body hitting the floor. The conclusion was drawn from the neighbor hearing the argument then seeing the kid run out the building right after which makes the kid guilty of murder. Appeal to fear was another fallacy illustrated during the film which one juror believes that those who are born in the slum are born criminals. He believes that the slums are breeding grounds for criminals which leads him to the conclusion that the kid is a menace to society. Therefore, he believes the kid is a threat and that makes him guilty of killing his father. Juror 10 also feels that the people from the slum are dangerous and should be feared. Appeal to fear points out threat or fears to support a conclusion and juror 10 is pointing out that the kid is a threat so therefore he should be considered guilty. Appeal to pity is a fallacy which you agree with a conclusion out of sympathy or concern. Appeal to pity was displayed by juror 8 when he pointed out the kid’s upbringing to the other jurors and how it may have impacted the kid into committing the murder of his father if he is
As the play went on, Juror Eight started proving how the boy was innocent. In the end Juror Eight changed all the other juror’s minds, except for Juror Three’s. Juror Three ended up changing his vote, not because they changed his mind but because he gave into peer pressure. He still had his prejudice influenced decision, he only gave in because he didn't want it to be a hung jury. Another example, from the same play, is Juror Eight.
He displays the tendency of an introverted Pragmatist with the Thinker preferences. Therefore, it takes him very long and requires several opinions laid out by other Jurors to change his mind from ‘guilty’ to ‘not guilty’. At the same time, he was firm and unafraid to stand up for himself once he changed his vote. He is sympathetic towards the boy as he grew up in the slum himself which caused him to disagree with Juror 3 numerous time. Therefore, his own upbringing in the slum makes him more knowledgeable about how the boy could have handled the switchblades and also the traits of living in the slum in
Over the course of the book, we see how the jurors get agitated, specifically towards juror eight, who believes that the boy is not guilty, going against the views of the rest of the juror. Many of the jurors are extremely biased and are true to their views. He realizes how precarious his position is but he still decides to continue fighting. Juror eight is
What is worth our attention in this movie is how in the beginning they are trying to convince each other to vote guilty. 11 juror voted guilty and only one voted not guilty. Their judgments were based upon either their past personal experience which created their thoughts and behavior or upon facts. Juror 8 represents the conscience. He stood up for his inner feelings that the accused young boy is innocent.
His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors.
It is a natural human instinct to want to be acknowledge by your peers, yet it is also important to be a critical thinker. Irving Janis in 1972 created the term groupthink. He believed groupthink occurs inside a group of similar people that want to keep from being different, resulting in incoherent decision-making. The 1957 film "12 Angry Men," uses groupthink, which influenced the verdict vote in the case of a teenager accused of murdering his father. The purpose of this essay is to examine groupthink and to represent Dr. Irving Janis’ symptoms of groupthink in the film.
Juror #2 finds it “interesting that he’d find a knife exactly like the one the boy bought”(24). Afterwards, the 8th Juror suggests that the old man, one of the witnesses, lied because of the point Juror #3 tried to make. Juror #3 says, that the old man “[ran ] to his door and [saw ] the kid tearing down the stairs fifteen seconds after the killing”(42). Juror #8 then suggests that the old man could not have done that because of his stroke.
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”. iv) When asked to defend his statement, he repeats that everyone knows he is guilty, thus creating Circular reasoning fallacy. v) Attack on the person was also made by him while stating, “The kid 's a dangerous killer, you could see it... He stabbed his own father, four inches into the chest.
Based on the evidence gathered from the case everyone agrees the boy is innocent except one man, juror three. He eventually breaks down and consequently tells the truth. The viewers can tell that this movie/play is full of emotions. Each of these emotions can be described as something more than what comes to the eye.
The jury system originated in England hundreds of years ago. The colonists brought the jury system from England to the United States. In 1733, John Zenger, a printer, printed a newspaper critical for the British Government. His attorney convinced the jury to be in favor for Zenger because his criticisms were true. After this trial, it gave ordinary citizens the freedom of speech and the power to go against the king.
Reasonable doubt proves that critical thinking is important when someone’s life is in someone else’s hands. “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, is a play about twelve jury members who must deliberate and decide the fate of a man who is accused of murdering his father. These twelve men must unanimously agree on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty without reasonable doubt. Just like the jurors, the readers of this play have not witnessed the crime that took place before the trial started. Everyone, but the writer, is in the dark about who committed the crime.
The children who come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.’ Juror 4 gives this very controversial statement. It involves presumption of the juror that might be from his personal experience or social influence. He has assumed that people born in slums are criminals but actually there are people who are not criminals. Fallacy 6: ‘The boy lied and you know it’ -
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 11 switched to “Not Guilty” Juror 8 questioned the second point: The elderly man claim that he heard the father falling down the floor, and he ran to the door of his apartment and the elderly man saw the boy(Defendant) running away from the the crime scene apartment to his apartment in 15 seconds Jurors 5,6,8 also think that that the elderly man second claim is not possible physical because they all know that the witness has stroke diseases, so 15 seconds is not possible for his ability to walk around the apartment Juror 8 conclude that the elderly witness assume that the person was the defendant and the witness is not actually 100% sure that that male is the boy/defendants Juror 3” He’s got to burn!
The people’s sympathy and concern for this young man’s life was the main goal in this murder trial. When he convinces the other jurors to talk it over for another hour, Juror eight also exemplifies the foot-in-the-door approach. In additional to the above tactics, he