Examples Of Fallacies In 12 Angry Men

Check your intuitions—neither dismiss them, nor trust them blindly. In the play, Twelve Angry Men, the Jurors are always checking their intuitions. The Jurors’ intuitions are going to change whether the accused is guilty or not. The judge says, “If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused—then you must declare him not guilty.

Many ethical flaws are seen in this movie as we come to know about the jurors that some of them are not serious about the case, everyone has its own priories than the case and compare it with own life than investigating about facts. Like juror 6 is happy that he doesn’t have to go to work juror 7 main concern for the case is whether it will be over before his ball game match most juror says that he is from ghetto, these people are of double standards. The 3rd juror has personal conflicts with his son so he thinks that the boy can kill his father no one analysis the case on the base of evidence they consider the boy guilty lack of communication between jurors is seen, on the base of their thinking they are giving their votes evidence are not analyzed, but the juror 8 put himself in the boys place to understand his condition and convinced other jurors by communicating and explaining everything. The 8 juror entered in the trail with open mind and he encourages others to do the same. This movie shows that anything is not

The term ‘fallacy’ is an ambiguous term. It can occur due to many reasons like, a false belief, the cause of any of the previous errors, kind of error in reasoning (including arguments, definitions, explanations, and so forth). There are 209 forms of fallacies. They can be created unintentionally or sometimes intentionally too. The movie ‘Twelve Angry Men’ describes the thoughts of twelve different men from different occupations in a jury room in around 1950s in United State. Their actions, behavior, thoughts and beliefs describe their characters. The movie initially describes the effect of majority in opinions in a group because when the foreman asked the jurors to vote for or against the kid, there were several who just raised their hands

In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.

In his closing argument for OJ Simpson’s criminal trial, Johnnie Cochran successfully argues for Simpson’s innocence. Repetition, appeals to audience emotion, and the use of scenarios to appeal to logic are all rhetorical devices which Cochran skillfully uses in order to create an argument that is strong and convincing to the courtroom. These devices help him shape his argument tactically in a manner and order that successfully defends OJ Simpson in the trial.

            Logical fallacies are repeatedly used by the jurors throughout the movie, and Juror Eight is no exception. After Juror Ten states that he believes the boy is guilty because of the testimony given by the woman who lives across the street, Juror Eight employs an Ad Hominem fallacy when he responds to Juror Ten by asking, “ I’d like to ask you something: you don’t believe the boy’s story. How come you believe the woman’s? She’s one of them too, isn’t she? Juror Eight uses another Ad Hominem fallacy just after Juror Three admits he would like to pull the switch to electrocute the boy when Juror Eight reacts to this by saying,

Although a lot of evidence was really convincing, he tried to prove it unconvincing and use sarcasm to convince other jurors otherwise. One example of #7 using sarcasm would be this quote: "Why don't we have them run the trial over..." I think this quote clearly shows that juror #7 is trying to convince other jurors, that court's evidence proves the young man is guilty without reasonable doubt. Also to break #8's spirit he used name calling, another kind of peer pressure. I believe this is a very good example: "The boy is guilty pal, like the nose on your face." The third and last juror I picked was #8, he was not using sarcasm, nor was he muscle flexing, he was using reasonable argument, which helped him convince all the jurors that the young man was innocent. He did not try to convince anybody by screaming at him, on the contrary he tried to go over all the evidence, and he was using intelligent thinking, like trying to calculate exact times, and figure out the correct position of the switch-blade in the chest of the father. He was also trying to recreate a situation to see if indeed one of the witnesses on the stand was lying.

The movie "12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury's decision on a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin decisions on the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused of stabbing his father to death, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis' bases his vote more so for the sake of discussion after all, the jurors must believe beyond a

The 1957 movie version of 12 Angry Men, brings twelve people together with different personalities and experiences to discuss the fate of a young boy that allegedly killed his father. At the very beginning, many agree that the boy is guilty except for one man. Juror #8 votes not guilty and pushes to have the evidence talked through. After reviewing all the evidence carefully, the tables turned from guilty to not guilty. Each juror brought different experiences and personalities to the jury room. The two that were forceful with their opinions and their reasonings to decide either way we're jurors #8 and #3.

The first argument presented by juror 8 is a “proposition of value” argument. Before examining the factual evidence in-depth, he examines the defendant’s upbringing. He believes that the defendant had been “kicked around his whole life” and because of this, the jurors “owe him a few words.” This argument is a presentation of the morality of their decision. The evidence presented is that the defendant had a hard life, the connective presented is that those with an upbringing similar to the defendants have an unfair disadvantage, and the conclusion is that they must discuss the case further before reaching a conclusion. This causes a reaction of disapproval from other jurors, such as juror 10, who says “we don’t owe [the defendant] a thing.” Juror 8’s first argument also presents a fallacy of a hasty

Twelve Angry Men is a courtroom drama that was brought to the big screens in 1957. The storyline follows twelve men selected for jury duty, who are trying to reach a verdict on a young man’s trial following the murder of his father. Throughout the debates and voting, the men all reveal their personalities and motives behind their opinions. Because of all the differences of the men, their communication skills lack in some ways and are excellent in others. The three small group communication variables that I found portrayed throughout the movie were prejudice, past experience and preoccupation.

The movie 12 Angry Men is about the murder mystery in which a nineteen year old son kills his father by putting knife in his chest. Then juries of 12 people discuss the case & decide the punishment for the son. A lot of fallacies are there in this movie.

Twelve Angry Men is about a jury who must decide the fate of an 18 year old boy who allegedly killed his father. The jury must determine a verdict of guilty beyond any reasonable doubt and not guilty. A guilty verdict would mean that the accused would receive the death penalty. After a day of deliberation and many votes, they came up with the verdict of not guilty. I believe they achieved their overall goal of coming up with a verdict they were all able to agree with. It seems there were some individual personal short term goals that were not met. One being that the one juror was not able to go to the baseball game. Another was that a juror was not able to take out the anger he had towards his son on the son accused of killing his

Another reason jurors should be able to ask questions is because they may not understand something. Juror Eight said,” Doesn’t this seem like an awkward way to handle a knife?” (Rose 335). The Jurors did not know if the boy knew how to properly hold a knife but if he

‘Twelve Angry Men’ is an American drama film from 1957. The story basically runs around a murder; a group of juries trying to convince each other if the accused is guilty or not based on logical reasoning. The movie effectively brings out the kind of fallacious arguments that can be seen around us and how the hero proves them false using logical reasoning.