What Is The Theme Of Fallacy In 12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men is a 96 minutes movie released in the year of 1957. The movie was beyond the ancient trend. The unique concept and exceptionally organised and well written script gave a place in the history to the movie. The movie is based on the arguments presents by 12 jury members in order to prove guilty of a boy who has been accused of stabbing a knife to his own father. The series of arguments presents by every jury members and their logical sequence adds life to the movie. In one sentences movie is about how a small argument and its strong presentation can lead to change the mindset of whole mass.
The storyline of the movie in brief is following:
The court orders Jury Members to come to an unanimous decision for the guilty of the boy.
After hours of hot discussions and strong arguments all jury members agreed on the innocence of boy.
The story line may seems short but the arguments which were made in order to prove boy, it guilty point out an issues of fallacious arguments. Fallacy is an argument having not strong background or poor reasoning. It can be mainly categorized as formal or informal. If we go more deeper there are different two hundred plus types fallacies. Manipulations of evidence and their way of representation is a cause of fallacy. There may be a chance of acceptance of fallacy as a valid argument. In order to identify fallacious statement we need a deeper analysis of the statement. For example
(a) God is someone who is capable of doing which normal people can’t do.
(b) Sachin Tendulkar plays cricket the way normal people can’t.
(c) So Sachin Tendulkar is God of cricket.
In the above succession of arguments the data is first two statements which is an universal fact. But the third sentence is a manipulation of that data to make a statement in favour of someone. So it is a
But if we analyze it in extensive manner there are chances of flow in it. There can be questions about authenticity or trustworthiness of the witness. Other than that as actually happened in the movie there can be some assumptions which lead witness to imagine the picture of particular person as victim.
"that boy was born in _ street, everyone in that street does those things!!"
The above statement is an argument made upon some misbelief regarding the culture in which boy has grown. The high rate of crime in the atmosphere, which boy has been brought up can not be a proof to hang a boy. Here juror is trying to manipulate the fact of high crime rate in favour of boy’s guilty.
“You don’t believe the boy’s story, how can you believe the woman’s?”
The above statement is an argument against trustworthiness of the witness. As mentioned in the film both victim and witness belong to the same ethical class of people. So there is a valid point in questioning about the rejecting boy’s story or accepting woman’s