How Is Fallacies Used In 12 Angry Men

“12 Angry Men” tells the story of an 18-year-old boy who is accused of stabbing his father to death. If found guilty the boy will get the electric chair. At first 11 of the 12 jurors were convinced that the boy was guilty. However, juror number 8 has doubts about the case and wants to examine the case in more detail. Without a unanimous vote the 11 of the 12 jurors must convince juror number 8 to vote guilty.

Twelve Angry Men, a play written for a televised audience focusing on the jury deliberation on a trail of a nineteen-year-old boy who is accused of murdering his father. As the jury deliberation occurs they find that the evidence presented is incomplete and faulty in reasoning

America gives any defendant a trial by judge, unless the judge allows a trial by jury. There are certain cases that need a better balance between a guilty verdict and the defendant’s freedom. Murder trials often receive 12 jurors to decide the defendant’s fate, while civil cases often have a judge making the verdict. The issue lies in citizens because they are unaware of the seriousness that presides in choosing another human’s future. Judges should be the only decision makers to choose a verdict which gives a defendant a fair trial in how they will use fact over feeling, they will be focused on deciding the verdict, and they are aware of the moral issues that may come out in a case.

Our jury system stretches all the way back in England hundreds of years ago. Whenever a crime was committed in a community, a judge and his or her jury would come together to put the accused on trial. The judge served more as the legal expert over the trial. However, the jury was made up of twelve men who lived in the area that the crime was committed. These ordinary citizens were the ones that decided the verdict of the case.

The seven logical fallacies; Ad Hominem (Argument to the Person): this is when you attack someone rather than the issue. For example, when you are at home and you have cleaned the whole house, then your husband comes and gets mud all over the floor the floor, instead of asking him to clean it up you get mad and start a fight. Hasty Generalization: this means that you reach a conclusion based on little or no evidence to support your claim, someone could argue it was just a coincidence. Sweeping Generalization: is something that cannot be proven not even when there is much evidence supplied. For example, most people today believe in aliens and some even say that they make crop circles in fields, even though a lot of people have seen crop circles

Likewise, saying that nobody proved that boy isn’t guilty, so he is guilty, involves error. Fallacy 3: ‘How come you believed her? She’s one of “them” too, isn’t she?’ – This statement by juror 8 involves ‘Attack on the person’. Instead of dealing with the fact that the lady had to say, the juror focused on lady, which can not justified relevant in discussion.

12 Angry Men by #11 Someone has been killed, and this is no ordinary killing, a man was killed by his own son himself. 12 angry men fight this subject in court whether to prove the innocence of the boy. all All 11 jurors voted guilty except for one juror, he voted the the the boy not guilty. He thought that there was a possibility that the boy could have not stabbed his father but he is not 100% clear.

Do you know how tough it is for one person to convince 11 different men that one boy is not guilty? Juror number 8 a very broad-minded man has successfully changed all 11 Jurors votes to not guilty in the given murder case. On todays topic, I will be talking about how juror # 8 wanted to learn more about the murder case before giving his final opinion. Second, how he proved that all the evidence given was not accurate. Finally, how he managed to stand all alone in the begging of the story, and change the thought of every individual juror.

“The kid robbed, threw a rock to a teacher…” -- This fallacy is “attack on the person” or fallacy of “stereotyping”. He says, that just because this kid has had a bad attitude in the past, he is a criminal for sure. “He’s not guilty because I don’t think he’s guilty.” This is fallacy of “appeal to ignorance”.

This story was taken place in New York. This story is about twelve jurors that have a very thought through and heated discussion about a young man that had supposedly killed his father with a switchblade knife. There are two witnesses in the story, one is an old man that lived in the same tenement as the boy did, and the other was a lady that lived in a building across the railroad tracks from the boys home. In the including of the “Twelve Angry Men” the literature syllabus for high school students has many advantages and disadvantages.

The fallacies present were mostly Argumentum ad Hominem, Argumentum ad Misericordiam, Argumentum ad Populum and Argumentum ad Baculum. Let’s start with the Argumentum ad Hominem. In real life, the usual court hearings use the ad Hominem attacks because it is more likely to win an argument if you’re going to destroy your opponents’ credibility. There were a lot of witnesses who had experienced ad hominem attacks, but this one has caught my attention and I will use it as an example. The psychologist who tried to defend Carl by his factual statement, but then Atty.

In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.

He also made a red herring fallacy during the demonstration of old man witness. iii) Fallacy of begging the question was made by him immediately as he has his entry in the room, claiming that, “everyone knows that he is guilty”. iv) When asked to defend his statement, he repeats that everyone knows he is guilty, thus creating Circular reasoning fallacy. v) Attack on the person was also made by him while stating, “The kid 's a dangerous killer, you could see it... He stabbed his own father, four inches into the chest.

In the film, “Twelve Angry Men” they show the role of the jury in finding the verdict for the court trial. In the US Constitution under the sixth amendment, this helps establish the procedures and right in criminal prosecutions and also gives some protections to the criminal. It is important to have an impartial jury and to be well informed on the cases. In the film the jury is tasked with finding the verdict of a young teen charged with the murder of his father. They have heard and seen the evidence involved and now they must come up with a verdict.

The role of reasonable doubt in the play “Twelve angry men” " It is better that a guilty person go free than an innocent person wrongly convicted", this quote is going to be a key element in "Twelve angry men" as the jurors have the duty to decide the fate of a young boy, and this fate meaned life or death, this jurors have different opinions regarding the sentence but we can classify them in 3 groups, the first group believes in the boy's innocence because they think the evidence is not completely accuarate to send a boy to death, then we have those whi believe that the boy is guilty because this evidence is enough to convict him and at last we have someone that believes the boy is guilty just because he is African-American, in this quote