The movie 12 Angry Men is about 12 members of a jury in a jury room discussing whether a boy is guilty or not of the killing of his father. When a vote is taken at the beginning, all members vote guilty except for Juror 8. He votes not guilty. When this happens, the members get mad at him for not agreeing with them. Juror 8 then points out that he doesn’t think the boy is necessarily innocent, but he doesn’t think he is guilty either. He states that he just wants to talk and discuss the case more. After he states this opinion, the men then proceed to start fighting and talking about whether they think the boy is guilty or not guilty. As a result, the 12 members of the jury began using the observation process to develop new knowledge for the …show more content…
case instead of just sticking to the facts like they were expected too and had believed to be true just because they were stated in court. After Juror 8 announces that he doesn’t agree with the majority vote of guilty, the men start trying to convince Juror 8 that he is wrong. They state that the boy is proven guilty with all the evidence and “facts” that the court has. After some discussion, Juror 9 also changes his vote from guilty to innocent and teams up with Juror 8 to prove the others that there is a chance the boy could be innocent. Juror 8 starts thinking more about the case and using the observation process to elaborate on the “facts” that have been told to him by the witnesses. He then remembers back in the court when one of the witnesses was talking. She was a woman and had stated that from her window she looked across the street to the boy’s house and saw the boy stab his father with her own eyes. Juror 8 then realizes that between her house and the boy’s house, a train runs through. He then starts thinking deeper and perceiving the “facts” that have been told to him. He then realizes that she would not have seen the boy actually kill his father in the time frame that the train would be running through between their houses. He then starts suspecting all the other “facts” that the other witnesses stated in court. He uses his observation process to sense with his brain, perceive the “facts” that the witness said in court and then thinks deeper about the actual facts that he knows be absolute. When he starts suspecting what the witness said in court, he also starts doubting all the witnesses and what they had said in court.
He states that he has no way to prove or disprove that anything they said were actual facts. Juror 3 then steps in and asks him questions on how anyone can be positive about anything. Most of the jury members agree with Juror 3 but still end up thinking the boy is guilty because of their belief that whatever the witnesses have said in court is the solid truth. By questioning the witnesses and what they said in court, Juror 3 displays the critical thinking of how facts are not absolute until proven with evidence. Facts are not considered facts unless proven that they are true with some type of repeated experiments and a stable conclusion. Based on what the witnesses said in court, nothing can be proven true because no one else was there with the witnesses at the time to make sure that what they saw or heard was in fact what actually happened. The jurors have to make a decision based on the information that was given to them. If they have any reasonable doubt about the boy’s innocence, then they automatically should prove not guilty. The rest of the jury does not use this critical thinking and sticks to the belief that if a witness said something about the boy then it has to be true even if no one else was there to see it or prove them …show more content…
wrong. Towards the end of the movie, Juror 9 brings up an observation that he made in court but didn’t think much about until he saw marks on one of the juror’s face from the eyeglasses that he was wearing.
Juror 9 says that when he was in court he saw marks on the woman witnesses face just like the ones on the juror’s. He then starts questioning how the woman even had time to put on her glasses and quickly look out to see the boy killing his father from across her window. The juror with eyeglasses agrees with Juror 9 and ends up changing his vote also. This type of critical thinking that Juror 9 displays is using observation skills to develop new knowledge. From his observations, he then draws new knowledge like how she couldn’t have possibly had time to put on her eyeglasses and looked in time to see the boy stab his father. He used his observation skills to remember the details of the woman’s face to add more information to the case and help lead all of them make the decision of the boy being guilty or not
guilty. This movie accurately displays how critical thinking is well used in everyday life and how it only sometimes takes one person to prove all the others wrong and help them think deeper than what is already in their mind. Critical thinking can also help in situations outside of a courtroom. A person can use critical thinking by not believing everything that is stated by a person or even technology in this generation. Many people nowadays don’t even try to go deeper into what they are thinking about. Critical thinking actually involves thinking and going deeper and not accepting what is just written on the outside but actually try to think outside the box. This movie also shows how people are easily influenced without knowing or even wanting to know the full story. In the beginning, most of the juror’s were 100% sure of their decision to decide the boy as guilty. They just wanted to be let out of the jury room and continue on with their lives. They didn’t think much about the boy’s life being at risk and his fate being completely in their hands. They just kept to the hard facts that they knew from the witnesses stories and accepted things for the way they were which is what they were expected to do. Juror 8 and 9 were the only ones that thought that the story presented in the court might not have been the full story. They did not stop fighting for the decision about the boy’s life until all evidence was presented and they were all sure that there was no reasonable doubt about the boy’s case. At the end, all of the juror’s were convinced that the boy could not have been guilty. Juror 8 convinced all of them that the boy was not necessarily guilty with the evidence that was presented. This movie had a good and accurate display of different types of critical thinking including the observation process. The different men each represented different ways to think about the case and most did not use critical thinking in their making of a decision at the beginning. Juror 8 and 9 helped them all go deeper and use their own experience and knowledge to think otherwise. These different types of thinking included using observation skills to develop new knowledge and using the observation process to go deeper and knowing that not all facts are absolutes unless observed and perceived and thought of in more depth.
The jurors took a vote and saw the ratio at eleven for guilty and only one for not guilty. When they repeatedly attacked his point of view, his starting defense was that the boy was innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite as the others had seen it. After Henry Fonda instilled doubt in the mind of another juror, the two worked together to weaken the barriers of hatred and prejudice that prevented them from seeing the truth. The jurors changed their minds one at a time until the ratio stood again at eleven to one, this time in favor of acquittal. At this point, the jurors who believed the defendant was not guilty worked together to prove to the one opposing man that justice would only be found if they returned a verdict of not guilty. They proved this man wrong by using his personal experiences in life to draw him into a series of deadly contradictions.
Prejudices cause peoples’ perceptions to be altered. The jurors are presented quite a bit about the boy’s background, and his records. Juror Ten struggles to see past the stereotypes and judges the boy based on his past actions. Juror Ten claims,” He’s a common ignorant slob. He don’t even speak good English,” (326). What is so ironic about this statement is that Ten claims the boy is dense and bases this claim on the fact that he can’t speak English well. However as corrected by Eleven, it is “doesn’t” not “does”. Perhaps the boy learned from his mistakes and sought to change. That is what life is all about. We fall down and hopefully learn from our mistakes so that we can create a better future for ourselves. Juror Ten is firmly set on the idea that the court covered everything by repeatedly saying, “They proved it,’’ on page 317. Unlike Eight he is not open-minded. As a juror it is important to be skeptics because the in court, lawyers may have presented information in such a way that information is perceived differently. Also crucial information may have not have been analyzed carefully. It’s important not to dwell on the past; its also keep prejudices from exposing you to
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
Juror #3 is very biased against the 19-year-old boy that is being tried, and this affects all of his thoughts and actions regarding the case. He has this bias because his own son hit him in the jaw and ran away from home at the age of 15: “I’ve got a kid…when he was fifteen he hit me in the face…I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out [but it’s no use] (21).”According to this quote from the text, this juror condemns all teenagers and feels resentment towards them. He especially feels strongly about the boy being tried, because the boy grew up in the slums, and this juror is also biased against these people who grew up there. It is because of these feelings that he is strongly cemented in his vote of guilty.
... I've lived among them all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean, they're born liars.” In this statement you can clearly tell his prejudice against the kid, just because of where he was raised. Juror # 10 and juror # 3 has prejudice against the kid. Juror # 3 has personal experience with a kid like the accused. “Reminded of his own family's personal crisis, Juror # 3 tells the jurors of his own disrespectful, teen aged boy who hit him on the jaw when he was 16. Now 22 years old, the boy hasn't been seen for two years, and the juror is embittered: "Kids! Ya work your heart out."” This is a direct example of juror # 3’s prejudice against the accused. When prejudice was in effect in the movie, it clouded the judgments of the jurors that were prejudice against the boy just because he was raised in the slums.
The problem that has been tormenting the eight juror is that no other jurors, other then the fifth juror agree with him. The eight juror claims that the boy is not guilty, but since everyone believes that he committed the murder, he has to convince them that he's right. Everyone is also accusing him for his opinion, which is making him frustrated.
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
Juror #1 originally thought that the boy was guilty. He was convinced that the evidence was concrete enough to convict the boy. He continued to think this until the jury voted the first time and saw that one of the jurors thought that the boy was innocent. Then throughout the movie, all of the jurors were slowly convinced that the boy was no guilty.
Yet with the help of one aged yet wise and optimistic man he speaks his opinion, one that starts to not change however open the minds of the other eleven men on the jury. By doing this the man puts out a visual picture by verbally expressing the facts discussed during the trial, he uses props from the room and other items the he himself brought with him during the course of the trial. Once expressed the gentleman essentially demonstrate that perhaps this young man on trial May or may not be guilty. Which goes to show the lack of research, and misused information that was used in the benefit of the prosecution. For example when a certain factor was brought upon the trail; that being timing, whether or not it took the neighbor 15 seconds to run from his chair all the way to the door. By proving this right or wrong this man Juror #4 put on a demonstration, but first he made sure his notes were correct with the other 11 jurors. After it was
From the very beginning of 12 Angry Men, we are shown a jury unevenly divided, eleven of the men voting for guilty, and one voting for not guilty. This
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...
The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.
For example, the old man that lived beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard a fight between the boy and the father and heard the boy yell, “I’m gonna kill you,” along with a body hitting the ground, and then claims that he saw the boy running down the stairs. With this information, along with other powerful eyewitness testimonies, all but one of the jury members believed this boy was guilty. The power of eyewitness testimony is also shown in Loftus’s (1974) study. In this study, Loftus (1974) found that those who claimed to “see” something were usually believed even when their testimony is pointless. She discovered in her study that only 18 percent of people convicted if there was no eyewitness testimony, 72 percent of people convicted when someone declared, “That’s the one!”, and even when the witness only had 20/400 vision and was not wearing glasses and claimed “That’s the one!”, 68 percent of people still convicted the person. This proves that in 12 Angry Men and Loftus (1974) study, eyewitness testimony is very powerful and influential in one’s decision to convict a
One surprising fact would be that the case would’ve come to a fast conclusion of a guilty verdict had it not been for Juror number eight disagreeing. He had a firm belief that the kid was innocent that he would stop at nothing to convince the other jurors he had a valid point. Yet, society has greatly changed and to come across someone so influential is rare. For starters, a jury trial is meant to represent the community in which the trial is taking place and it should include an equal amount of diversity compared to the community. Since this case took place in New York, it is impractical to have an all-white male jury today.