Every juror had his own set of prejudices which gave way to so many fallacies to come up. The fallacies here are listed juror wise, all the fallacious traits observed in one juror at a time. 1) Juror 1: i) 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
Eleven men found the boy guilt, while juror eight was the only man that wanted to review the case over again to make sure the jury was making the correct decision. All eleven jurymen were set on the boy being guilty and were trying to convince juror eight that he was guilty. 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.
Sidney Lumet 's staggering courtroom drama 12 Angry Men mostly takes place in the cramped jury room where a dozen “men with ties” decide the fate of Puerto Rican teenager accused of murdering his abusive father. Yet the prologue to their civic imprisonment, which takes place beyond these confined walls, sets the stage for Lumet 's overarching concerns about the contradictions of the democratic process. After a few short establishing shots where men, women, and children traverse the plaza steps and interior hallways of the court building, Lumet and director of photography Boris Kaufman focus on a particular door, where one of many cases currently in motion is just about to reach critical mass. The legal arguments have subsided, leaving the courtroom mostly silent and the fate of the accused in the hands of the aforementioned 12 white men. Before their dismissal, the judge looks down at the group and bequeaths them to “separate the fact from the fancy.” Despite his harsh tone, we quickly realize only one of them takes this statement seriously.
In these two critically-acclaimed movies, government ignorance is explored in distinct ways. In 12 Angry Men, a jury of 12 men is sent to determine the fate of an 18-year-old slum-raised Latino boy accused of stabbing his father to death. A guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. In Beasts of the Southern Wild we are taken on an adventure alongside Hushpuppy, an African-American six-year old, who lives on a poverty-stricken island called the Bathtub and whose father’s tough love prepares her for a harsh world. As completely opposite as these two perspectives seem, each represents opposing sides of social injustice and ultimately deliver similar messages.
‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose, is based on the story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a young boy accused to have murdered his own father. Initially, eleven of the jurors vote not guilty with one of the juror being uncertain of the evidence put before them. As the men argue over the different pieces of evidence, the insanity begins to make sense and the decision becomes clearer as they vote several other times. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly exploring through the many issues of prejudice, integrity and compassion, in gaining true justice towards the accused victim. These aspects have been revealed through three character who are Juror 10, Juror 8 and Juror 3.
He thus decides to take the lead in personally taking care of his trial as his impatience towards his lawyer rises. K. lives for his trial only and ends up letting go of all resistance. As Joseph K was initially indifferent to his trial, he makes it, by the end of the novel, his own business and identifies to it completely. At first convinced by his innocence, Joseph K. he finally consents to his guilt in his acceptance to being executed. Throughout the novel, the evolution of Joseph K. relates to the quest of his
12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, is a play that takes place only in one room of a courthouse. Where this drama may lack in any attention to the setting, it makes up for it with its elaborately corroborated characters who are jurors making a decision on whether or not to charge a boy with murder hereafter sentencing him to the chair. As shown through the play, most of the jurors appear dissatisfied with the situation, a common nuisance with the public, having to work jury duty. However, one juror, referred to as juror eight, is appalled by such actions being carried out by his fellow men and decides to stand up for this kid and prove his innocence. This entails much backlash by the others.
The purpose of this essay is to examine groupthink and to represent Dr. Irving Janis’ symptoms of groupthink in the film. After viewing the film 12 Angry Men, this movie shows a jury of men trying to decide the verdict in the case of a teenager accused of murdering his father. A simple task for the jury deciding on if the teenager is guilty or not guilty turns into irrational decision-making. The 1957 film is an immense example of how groupthink can
8th juror appeals to their sense of pathos and pity by saying “this boy’s been kicked around all his life…He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” While this has nothing to do with the case, he hopes to appeal to their humanity in order to get them to give him a chance in these deliberations. Many of the jurors use logos, logic and reasoning, to lay out the evidence in a rational and concrete manner to convince him. An example is when 4th Juror lays out all of the evidence of the knife to convince 8th Juror with seven, linear, factual points.
When a life is on the line, to what extremes will you go to save it? What does guilty beyond a reasonable doubt really mean? In 12 angry men you have 11 people who are ready to send this young man off without a single syllable said in his favor. Then we meet Juror number 8, a man who is ready to put his neck on the line; in a room of hot, tired and angry men. To try and pull this case together, and maybe save a man’s life.