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. The jury consisted of 12 Men, young and old, from different backgrounds and cultures, with different social position, different thinking but one thing in common- none of them had …show more content…
I thought it was obvious. I mean nobody proved otherwise.’ – This is the justification given by juror 2 on why he thinks that the boy is guilty. This statement involves the ‘Appeal to Ignorance’. Just by saying that nobody proved that God doesn’t exist, therefore God exists, isn’t enough. Likewise, saying that nobody proved that boy isn’t guilty, so he is guilty, involves error. Fallacy 3: ‘How come you believed her? She’s one of “them” too, isn’t she?’ – This statement by juror 8 involves ‘Attack on the person’. Instead of dealing with the fact that the lady had to say, the juror focused on lady, which can not justified relevant in discussion. Fallacy 4: ‘You’re right. It’s the kids. The way they are—you know? They don’t listen.’ This is a hasty generalization made by juror 3. He says that since his son is a rotten kid, all the kids are rotten. The boy is also a kid and hence, he is also rotten. But this is a hasty decision which is not completely …show more content…
We can’t help that. We’re not here to go into the reasons why slums are breeding grounds for criminals. They are. I know it. So do you. 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 statement by juror 3 includes a fallacy since he forcefully asserts a statement to make it true which may or may not be true. No one could actually say whether the boy was lying or not but he said it as if it was a universal truth. Fallacy 7: ‘Bright! He’s a common, ignorant slob. He doesn’t even speak good English’ – This statement by juror 10 is again the person specific and not on the main issue, thus involves ‘Attack on the person’. Fallacy 8: ‘I know how to use a switch blade; Switch knives came with the neighborhood where I lived..’ This statement by juror 5 is a fallacy since he is assuming that anyone who lives in a place where switch knives come from would know how to use them. This is not true always. A person will become a boxer only when he will learn and practice it, not by being born in a family of
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The murder of a fourteen year old African American took place in Money Mississippi, and left an impact to many people. In 1955 the Judicial System held a trial against the death of Emmett Till that led with two suspects Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam, and became an overturn affecting for Ms. Bradley. There were twelve witnesses; nine farmers, an insurance man, and two carpenters that were there to testify. The court encountered included in Emmett Till’s case was the jury, evidence, witnesses, and prosecution.
Rational or irrational? Not guilty or guilty? This was the key question between the jurors throughout this movie. During the film a young boy gets accused for stabbing his father to death. In “Twelve Angry Men” we get introduced to twelve jurors made up of men with different backgrounds.
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
The character from Twelve Angry Men who committed this fallacy was the Father, juror #3. The Father referenced the boy’s trial as an “open and shut case.” The Father’s reference was a Hasty Generalization, because it could imply that he only listened to the prosecution during the trial.
After watching 12 Angry Men, I was very inspired by juror 8 ' argument techniques. His eye contact, body language, tone, the persuasive techniques he used like induction, pathos, ethos and logos should be studied and analyzed in a very detailed, precise way. These factors were strong enough to change 11 angry men 's mind and to vote not guilty, even juror 3 who is the most stubborn. 12 Angry Men 's message toward individuals and the society as a whole is to think once and twice before judging, how to have a successful, convincing argument and most importantly, it encourage everyone to stand up for your opinion. One of the reasons why everyone should speak up is sometimes other people are thinking the same way, but they are not brave enough to express their opinion.
Juries mostly sit in the Crown Court; if a defendant pleads not guilty, he will be tried by a judge sitting with 12 jurors. Due to numerous cases of jury misconduct being brought to light, serious questions about jury trials are being augmented. To an extent, this is compromising people’s confidence in the jury system. Jury misconduct can be explained as an infringement of the law of the court by a member of the jury, either while a court case is underway or after a verdict is out.
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.
In all facets of human life there is a constant pressure. One of the most potent forms of this is peer pressure. It affects how humans make decisions, in all facets of an everyday life. Peer is a force that can bring out the best and worst of humanity. Additionally, in the context of Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men peer pressure is used to highlight the best and worst aspects of the American judicial system circa 1954.
but Juror number ten said otherwise. The evidence that is shown to prove this point is when all the jurors are all at the table and they all go to the window and turn their backs towards juror number ten, specifically juror numbers three and four. This happened while the vote was nine to three, nine voted innocent and three voted guilty. Three and four turned their backs towards number ten because they disagreed on why they thought the boy was guilty. Juror number ten was an ill-mannered man who was very bigot.
Miah Archambault 12 lessons Prejudice gets in the way of the truth affecting the amount of time the jury spent to vote. Many of the jurors do not bother listening to the truth or facts of the case, as they’re entitled to their opinion. This is evident in the way jurors #3 and #10 come to their decision the defendant is guilty. Juror #10 brings the most prejudice into the room, as his decision was established the moment he saw the young boy from the slum. Once juror #10 laid eyes on the boy, he sees no reason to waste time on debating the defendant's fate.
What if one day, twenty years from now you were chosen to discuss the fate of an eighteen year old boy. What would you do? Would you take your job and do it responsibly, or would you do it like some of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men and blow it off so you can finish early and leave. Even though there was a lot of controversy in that jury room, I noticed that Jurors 3,7, and 9 used their personalities, beliefs, and views of their responsibilities to bring the boy on trial to justice. This very excitable juror is the last to change his vote, and while his stubbornness could be seen as being based more on emotions than facts, he starts off with his little notebook with facts of the case and tries to insist that he has no personal feelings on the matter.
12 Angry Men Essay The movie 12 Angry Men, is about a son who may have committed murder, killing his father, and 12 jurors have to either prove him innocent or guilty. There are jurors who are fixed on saying that the 19 year old boy is guilty of murdering his father, but there are other jurors who are saying he is innocent until they have proof to say that he is guilty. There are many instances when the jurors use fallacies, deductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning when they are trying to prove either that the boy is guilty or innocent.
The play “Twelve Angry Men” shows that relying on twelve people for a life sentencing situation could be bad for the justice system. The justice system could be bad in at least three ways by people being biased, fighting for the wrong side, and people having no common sense. Usually others opinions cause the justice system to be worse than it has to be. A danger of relying on twelve individuals in a court system means that there are some that would be biased about the case. Juror 5 was biased for relating this case to himself because he was from the slums and so was the boy on trial.
The Film 12 Angry Men, written by Reginald Rose, is a film written about the American jury system. In the film, as in any part in life, emotions are a tricky thing; This is especially true for the 3rd, 7th, and 8th jurors. One of the main themes in the film questions that of the emotions of the jurors. That question is: Is it possible to keep personal prejudice and emotions out of a trial? Is this even a good or bad thing?