Fallacies In Juror 8

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

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