How Is Fallacies Used In 12 Angry Men

“A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a nineteen years old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are weak include the one of a kind knife, the old men who heard the words “I’m going to kill you!” and the woman who is in question because of her glasses. Based on these, the boy is not guilty.

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. What if juror 8 did not have the courage to freely state his opinion? The innocent boy would be dead for doing absolutely nothing.

“A person is innocent until proved guilty in a court of law” In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, an 18-year-old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence, the three that are in doubt are the old man hearing “I’m going to kill you!” as well as the weapon of choice and how it was replicated, and finally the woman’s testimony. In my opinion, the boy could have been proven guilty, based on these the boy is not guilty.

People tend to base characteristics of people pretty quickly; likewise, their personalities. Most people base their opinions on stereotypes. Reginald Rose and his play “12 Angry Men” demonstrate how people are quick to judge other people based on looks. In the movie all twelve jurors must decide if a young boy is guilty or innocent. At the beginning of the movie/play-write, only one juror, juror eight, decides the boy is innocent. 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.

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.

The fallacies present were mostly Argumentum ad Hominem, Argumentum ad Misericordiam, Argumentum ad Populum and Argumentum ad Baculum.

While both end up voting the same way, their approaches throughout the majority of the film are vastly different. To start, the third juror is much more factual, stating in the film, “Okay let’s get the facts… and he ran to the door of his apartment and the boy!”(12 Angry Men) This immediately shows the viewer that Juror 3 will base the majority of his argument in fact. In contrast, Juror 8 feels that communicating with the other jurors and piecing together their views is a better way to solve the case. This is shown when Juror 8 says, “There were eleven votes guilty. It’s not so easy for me to send a boy off to die without talking about it first.”(12 Angry Men) In the first difference, Juror 7 falls with Juror 3, believing much more of the facts than discussion. The second difference with the approach of the two jurors is in their persuasions techniques. As for Juror 3, he prefers loud, yelling, and calling people out and telling them they are wrong. This is why Juror 3 is represented with a lightning bolt. On the outside, he is obviously quick striking, hot, and loud. He can obviously be seen in the film yelling and attacking every character. On the other hand, Juror 8 is more tranquil, and cool, and will let anyone speak. He is often seen asking other jurors to elaborate on their opinion, not just tell them they are wrong. The cool blue, soft circle shows his willingness to listen, and not have a

William Jennings Bryan once said, “Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority”. Standing up to the majority is vital, it gives individuals the opportunity to express their individual, unique opinions and experiences. It allows the majority to become open to diversity and the cultures that come along with it. This has been shown throughout history, Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech, is an instance of this. This speech encapsulated all that he was fighting for, for the African American minority in America and their rights. MLK standing up to the majority of white people was a significant piece of American and African American history and was

Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.

Juror 8 is the most significant persuader is the entire jury. He is the only person who believes the boy is not guilty. He makes several points that justify his reasoning. The first major point he makes is the switchblade knife. During the trial the prosecution assumed that that knife was one of a kind and no other person could have a knife like that. Juror 8 took it into his own hands to prove the prosecution wrong and purchase the same knife at a

The juror changes his opinion after listening to the explanations of how the knife was used to hit the man. This could be a fallacy of False Cause. This can be said because just by knowing the way murder was done, it could not be concluded that the kid was

For Instance, the cartoon in document E illistates a man saying, “we, the jury, find the defendant to be as guilty as he looks.” (Document E). This indicates that lawfully uneducated people don’t understand how to choose a verdict based upon the facts. They will use their biased opinion for evidence. Another piece of evidence lies in cartoon 1, where most of the jurors are unfocused from the trial, while others simply do not care (Document E). With a jury that cares about everything but the trial, how is the defendant suppose to be given a fair trial? He isn’t. The last piece of evidence is cartoon 3, where a dog is being judged by his natural enemies, feline (Document E). These ‘jurors’ all hate the dog and no matter what the evidence is, the dog will be guilty. It applies to our system with the notion that a suspect is hated by jurors because the media accuses them of being guilty before the trial begins. A jury is not trained to decide someone’s fate, which is why a judge, as a trained lawyer, should choose the

When finding a jury system, the court attempts to find twelve adults that are unbiased to decide the fate of the defendant. If we lived in a perfect world, that would work but we do not. Almost everybody has an opinion on certain topics that revolve around a case including the death penalty and their own experiences. A jurors will always be biased no matter what they put down when filling out their form. For example, in the 2008 court case, the verdict of the jury stunned the public making many raged and confused (Document D). The jury may not be experienced enough and can make fatal mistakes. Not only are the jurors biased, they are inexperienced. As shown in cartoon 1, 2, and 3 (Document E), many of the jurors have no experiences with court and base their verdicts on factors other than what the lawyers are giving them. Examples such as the jurors being dogs, verdict based on appearance, and being distracted with other issues during the court trial. The juror is inexperienced and biased, while the judge is experienced with what is going around during a trial, and they have been trained to be able to see both sides of a story and decide on evidence and

During a Bench Trial, the judge decides what the verdict is and his or her opinion is the only one that matters. However, a Jury Trial uses the opinion of twelve ordinary citizens. Just based on the fact that more people are deciding the verdict makes it more just. One person, the judge, may overlook a small detail. Consequently, the case could have a totally different result if that detail was not overlooked. In 2010 there were 2,352 Jury Trials and 394 Bench Trials. (Document A, 289) Furthermore, 2,066 of the accused during Jury trials were convicted, while as only 257 were found guilty during the Bench Trials. (Document A, 289) This leads some people to think that the Jury was filled with people who jumped to conclusions based on how the accused looked or had an emotional connection with the victim. I believe that the percentage of convicted compared to the acquitted is higher in Jury Trials because they had twelve sets of eyes going over the same case and were able to talk through it with each other. This allows them to make the most accurate decision that they could with the information

The seven logical fallacies; Ad Hominem (Argument to the Person): this is when you attack someone rather than the issue. For example, when you are at home and you have cleaned the whole house, then your husband comes and gets mud all over the floor the floor, instead of asking him to clean it up you get mad and start a fight. Hasty Generalization: this means that you reach a conclusion based on little or no evidence to support your claim, someone could argue it was just a coincidence. Sweeping Generalization: is something that cannot be proven not even when there is much evidence supplied. For example, most people today believe in aliens and some even say that they make crop circles in fields, even though a lot of people have seen crop circles