12 Angry Men by Talita E. Sigillo

Based on the film “12 mad men” In the motion picture “12 angry males”, one can check out a range of misconceptions and generalizations. Each juror except for one is available in with a verdict of “Guilty”, however by utilizing critical believing the reasons to support their claim are dismissed one by one. Other than for Juror number 3 who is the last one to change his verdict.

He ignores all important thinking and adheres to his preliminary claim utilizing multiple misconceptions to support it.

He is plainly discriminative towards the defendant no mater the proof brought forward to him. Only at the end does he realize that all this time he was seeing his own son in the eyes of this kid, a boy that had actually “disrespected” the father. Him. Following are only a few of the multiple fallacies juror number three utilized to support his claim. Among the really first fallacies juror number three usages is “pleading the question.” This is when one states an opinion as though it is a popular reality. When he initially goes into the room he claims “everyone understands he is guilty!! and when asked by the vital thinker to discuss the reasons for his claim the juror responses: “everything Says he is guilty” by using this factor he again is “pleading the concern” and at the same time uses “Circular reasoning” because he reiterates his claim as though it is factor.

Furthermore when analyzing the 2 testimonies, the vital thinker discovers ways to show that there is an affordable doubt in the two witnesses testaments. Again juror number three utilizes more than one fallacy to claim that he has no sensible doubt.It was given their attention that the female who affirmed that she had actually seen the young boy eliminate the father couldn’t in fact see someone clearly. This claim was supported with the following reason and train of thought: The look of the murder was translucented her bedroom window, the window of the moving train, across the street and through the victim’s apartment or condo window. “Could, who the lady saw devote the murder, be somebody else”? Juror number three claimed that the “woman affirmed in court” and likewise stated “The female stated she saw him” and finally ended with “the lady saw it! After sensible doubt to the statement is used, juror number three used the above quotes as his reasons to support his claim that it was the kid that the female saw, concluding with proof that do not follow through with his claim and hence being “non sequitor”. Juror number 3 still had a valid factor to believe the young boy had dedicated the murder given that the male’s statement was that he heard the boy shout out the phrase “I’m going to kill you!” to his daddy and that the old male who affirmed in court, saw the boy diminishing the stairs which he heard the body fall.Through vital thought and evaluating the evidence piece by piece, it was pointed out that, since the murder happened throughout the death of a train, the old man could not have actually possibly heard the body fall which it took him too long to cross his room and unlock for him to have actually seen the boy after committing the murder.

Still juror number 3 voted guilty saying he had no reasonable doubt that “the boy stated ‘I’m going to eliminate you’ and he killed him” at this moment he was using circular reasoning, reiterating his claim as a reason.It was at this point that the important thinker decided to show his point to juror number 3, he provoked him a lot to the point that he said “I’m going to eliminate you !!” to the other juror who provoked him, it was brought to his attention that a lot of them might have “criminal propensities” like the young boy, however having them did not imply acting upon them. It was then that juror number three started loosing control. All the factors he was utilizing to mask the reality about why he was founding guilty the boy had been questioned leaving him with no sensible warrants to support his claim of guilty.When questioned once again “what proof do you have that the young boy is guilty?” he answers with a “Red Herring” that he is “entitled to his viewpoint” By the end of the film his true premise behind the decision of guilty was came to the surface area. Juror number three had a kid that had gotten in an argument with him and had stopped speaking with him. This, according to the worths in which the juror was raised, was disrespect and disrespect was inexcusable towards the father.

It was obvious, that he focused on respect to the daddy above whatever else, when he stated “It doesn’t matter what his dad did it’s his father and you can’t state ‘I’ll kill you’ to you father!” This value that he focused on in addition to the event with his child was what had clouded his judgement and impacted his point of view. Juror number 3 was for that reason unable to seriously look at the evidence presented since he was discriminative towards the young boy. For Juror number three the young boy was guilty to begin with for disrespecting his father witch is this Jurors greatest worth.

You Might Also Like