12 Angry Men Juror Number 3 Analysis

Title: Fallacies in the movie ’12 Angry Men’ Name: Prerna Singh Roll No.: 13110082 Word Count: The movie ’12 Angry Men’ beautifully presents a number of critical thinking aspects. Fallacies are depicted with excellent examples. Here is a list of the fallacies observed. Every juror had his own set of prejudices which gave way to so many fallacies to come up.

Throughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing.

He didn't have any true evidence on why he was innocent but his gut feeling. His first priority was to make all the other twelve jurors think the same as him. “It’s not that easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy to jail” (12 Angry Men). He didn't want to send a innocent boy to rot in jail for something he didn't do. He went through all the facts and let everyone talk and the counter act on what everyone else said.

The square is outlined by a bright red because most of the movie juror three is an angry, hot tempered man. On the inside of the square, it fades from a dark blue to a very light blue. As seen in figure one the square fades on the inside, the darker blue shows the power that juror three thought he had and as it fades to the lighter blue it represents the sorrow that he has for losing connection with his son. All through the movie juror three was stubborn and his temper was put to the test when asked “Are you his executioner,” he responded with “I am one of them” (12 Angry Men). As seen in Figure 1 juror three and juror 7 are placed on the left side and they are placed closer together.

Whenever people inspect a piece of work and try and figure out what it means 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play about 12 jurors deciding on a verdict for a boy who supposedly committed murder. There is a lot of opinions shared with everyone trying to have the correct verdict that they want and many people may think that this play is just about finding the correct outcome of the case, but it is actually about deeper meaning that Rose wanted the reader to learn. In the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the authorial intent is two different ideas to take away from the reading and they are, people change with the opinions of others and your background changes your perspective. The first idea that Rose intended for the readers to get is

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.

One of the central characters in the movie is that of the Jury Foreman, played by Martin Balsam. His role is vital because he is responsible for guiding the whole discussion among the rest of the jurors and organizing an efficient system to ensure everyone’s point of view is taken into account. He comes across as authoritative on multiple occasions when he tries to silence any brewing arguments. He likes his position of power. As a juror he doesn’t contribute much until the very end.

If he’s declared innocent he walks free. The film essentially boils down into one question. What is the value of human life? The individual jurors each have their own biases which are formed from their past experiences. I want to begin by looking at juror member 8, our protagonist, the juror who from the start pleads that the dedendant is not

Juror eight held his ground and convince the men to look over all of the evidence. Juror eight brought out the files, acted out different situations and the murder scene. The men went back and forth for hours fighting about whether or not the boy was guilt of killing his father Slowly one by one the jurors changed their mind from guilty to not guilty. All but juror three changed their mind, he was the last one standing so the vote was 11-1.

TWELVE ANGRY MEN In shape, "12 Angry Men" is a court dramatization. In object, it 's a brief training in those entries of the Constitution that guarantee litigants a reasonable trial and the assumption of blamelessness. It has a sort of stark straightforwardness: Other than a brief setup and epilog, the whole film happens inside of a little New York City juror room, on "the most smoking day of the year," as twelve men discuss the destiny of a youthful respondent accused of killing his dad.

In the play 12 Angry Men the 8th juror has a positive impact by standing up for what he believes in. The eighth juror voted not guilty because he couldn't sentence a boy to death without deliberating long and hard. As The eighth juror said on pg. 13 “ It's not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die within talking about it first.” The boy he refers to is 16 years old and the eighth juror couldn't let a boy who is technically a minor die, he feels that it is his civic duty to talk about it.

Gentlemen of the Jury, before you write Miss Medea off as having been driven insane through grief and loss, some of the facts that have been presented today need to be put in order. First and foremost, homicide has occurred, and it has been done through the hand of the defendant. There is no arguing this fact; multiple witnesses have been brought forth to testify against this woman. These witnesses were present for the planning of all of the murders, and were threatened with death if they breathed a word of it. The only argument that the defense has left is to portray Medea as being insane.