Twelve Angry Men: Revised Logical Fallacy Essay Assignment During the discussion between the jurors, Juror #10 had made a red herring logical fallacy. In the book, the jurors talked about the boy’s unfortunate situation; they believed that they owed the boy something. In response to the jurors, Juror #10 stated, “We don’t owe him a thing. He got a fair trial, didn’t he?
In the play Twelve Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, it is made extremely clear that doubt fogs up proper judgement. At the very beginning of the play the presiding Judge states “If there is a reasonable doubt - then you must bring me a verdict of not guilty”. Making it clear that if all twelve jurors were not a hundred percent certain that the young man had committed the murder he shall be acquitted. One juror, number Eight, stands alone against the 11 others in hope of convincing them that the young man is not guilty. All other jurors highly doubted that the defendants innocents, which led to cloudy judgement on their initial verdicts.
Though juror 3 has been adamant on the guilt of the young boy it is safe to say that this case meant more to him because the relationship with his son is similar to the relationship between the boy and the father. Since his personal vendetta causes him to forcefully accuse the boy of murder it leaves the jury 11-1 in favor of not guilty. Since carefully reviewing the movie it becomes very prevalent that there has not been enough substantial evidence to convict the boy of murder. Furthermore, with the usage of group think all of the men, accept juror 3 are able to put their pride aside and vote what they truly believe the verdict should be, which is not guilty. Though, one of the more pragmatic points in the film happens after juror 3 becomes infuriated after realizing that all of the men are voting not guilty.
People act upon what they think. Within “12 Angry Men”, all of the jurors have an opinion but some voice their more than others. One juror in particular, Juror Ten, voices his opinion about the boy in question. Repeatedly throughout the play, Juror Ten makes many thoughtless and hurtful comments about a certain kind of people. It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race.
Injustice and justice are also shown in 12 angry men, where deciding the future of a man by choosing if he is innocent or guilty. Some of the jurors, such as 8th believes that the man may not be guilty, and is out in the positing where they feel more lenient towards the man being accused because there is hope that they can have a shot at winning the case. Others, such as 6th juror, points out that he might actually be guilty, despite everyone talking about his bad upbringing. This shows that every perception of justice has something to do with personal experiences, values and morals, as some jurors could relate to the man and sympathise, whilst others chose to take a clearer approach and look at hard evidence. Personal experiences and relationships affecting the way people perceive the concept of justice is also shown in To Kill A Mockingbird, when Tom Robinson is declared guilty, purely based on the fact that he is coloured.
Reasonable doubt proves that critical thinking is important when someone’s life is in someone else’s hands. “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, is a play about twelve jury members who must deliberate and decide the fate of a man who is accused of murdering his father. These twelve men must unanimously agree on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty without reasonable doubt. Just like the jurors, the readers of this play have not witnessed the crime that took place before the trial started. Everyone, but the writer, is in the dark about who committed the crime.
In the 1930s, if a black man was on trial there was a ample chance he would be convicted even if evidence proved he was innocent. Throughout history humans being prejudice and bias have affected the lives of thousands of people; some ending with favorable outcomes while others weren’t so fortunate. Within the book To Kill a Mockingbird the readers learn that prejudice and bias people outnumber the understanding and kind. One decision or in this case twelve decisions decide the fate for an unfortunate man. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee reveals that people often follow their biases and prejudices rather than the truth.
The play 12 Angry Men is about a jury of twelve men that are given the task of deciding the fate, guilty or not guilty, of a young boy accused of murdering his father. The theme of standing up against the majority is very prevalent in this story because of the decisions some of the jurors make throughout the play. Juror 8 makes the decision to vote not guilty, he is the one and only juror in this play that decides to vote not guilty for the boy in the beginning. The other eleven jurors decide to vote guilty because of the evidence that they have been presented with. The act of Juror 8 standing against the majority of the other jurors about the case, voting not guilty, allows the jurors to thoroughly dissect the case, understanding it fully and thoughtfully before making their decision of guilty or not guilty.
In the play ‘Twelve Angry Men’, the jury begins its deliberations with a vote of 11-1 in favor of guilty and ends 12-0 in favor of not guilty. From this, we might conclude that the jury started with false certainty and deliberated until they uncovered the certain truth. However, the jury is never able to establish whether or not the defendant is innocent. Rather than uncovering certainty, their deliberations uncover doubt—enough doubt that they do not feel that the evidence is enough to convict the defendant “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I am aware that the role of ways of knowing such as language and emotion in influencing the jury is not to be ignored; however, even the slightest thread of doubt changed the jury’s verdict.
Mobashshir Arshad Ansari DM 16230 The movie “12 Angry Men” is a court drama based movie. The entire film takes place within a small New York City jury room, on "the hottest day of the year," as 12 men debate the fate of a young defendant charged with murdering his father. Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear-cut verdict. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty if innocent then who is guilty.
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.
Having a biased jury is just one way Twelve Angry Men shows the dangers of the jury system. Throughout the course of the play, many of the jurors assume, because
The justice system that relies on twelve individuals reaching a life-or-death decision has many complications and dangers. The play Twelve Angry Men, by Reiginald Rose, illustrates the dangers of a justice system that relies on twelve people reaching a life-or-death decision because people are biased, they think of a jury system as an inconvenience, and many people aren’t as intelligent as others. The first reason why Reiginald illustrates dangers is because people can be biased or they can stereotype the defendant. The Jurors in Twelve Angry Men relate to this because a few of them were biased and several of them stereotyped the defendant for being from the slums. The defendant in this play was a 19 year old kid from the slums.
The movie “Twelve Angry Men” illustrates lots of social psychology theories. This stretched and attractive film, characterize a group of jurors who have to decide the innocence or guiltiness of an accused murder. They are simply deliberating the destiny of a Puerto Rican teenaged boy accused of murdering his father. Initially, as the film begins, except the juror Davis (Henry Fonda), all other jurors vote guilty. Progressively, the jurors begin trying to compromise on a point that everybody agree because the decision of the jury has to be unanimous.
In a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence
