12 Angry Men Sense Perception

The act of being untruthful in a society may arise when most people present false statements. Although Juror 8 has convinced nine other jurors to see reasonable doubt they further discuss a witness in her forties “making a tremendous effort to look thirty-five for her first public appearance” and states that she lived in the opposite apartment from the accused and his father. Juror 9 who points out that “the woman who testified that she saw the killing had these same deep marks on the side of her nose” indicating that she wears eyeglasses and the statement in her testimony was inaccurate. This alters the three other jurors verdict of voting guilty as one witnesses testimony could of made

Senses can manipulate your awareness of reality. As stated in Incognito, "So the first lesson about trusting your senses is: don't. Just because you believe something to be true, just because you know it's true, that doesn't mean it is true. " For example, anosognosia known, as a “lack of insight” is a disease that misleads people into thinking there is no problems with them.

However, it isn't just the jurors' own personal prejudice that affects the way they vote. The prosecution of the boy led the jurors to believe that he was a guilty beyond all doubt. Also, the boy's representation was uninterested and uncaring. ‘I kept putting myself in the boy's place. I would have asked for another lawyer, I think. I mean, if I was on trial for my life I'd want my lawyer to tear the prosecution witnesses to shreds, or at least to try.' [Juror 8, page 14]

One piece of evidence that help to prove his innocence is the woman who lives across the street and wears glasses. The women who live across the street has testified against the boy, saying that she saw him kill his father through the window of her apartment and the last two windows of an El train. Now it was proved that you can see through windows of the El train at night. However, the woman wears glasses, one of the jurors wears glasses and he can’t even see the clock that is in the same room as him. Now it could be a chance that the woman is farsighted, but since it is known that no one sleeps with their glasses on. Her testimony has been debunked since there was no possible way she could have saw him kill his father all the way from across the street.

This is very significant in swaying the jurors vote even more because with the lady seeing the murder right when she looks out the window while in bed, she likely does not wear her glasses to bed. And this persuades the jurors even more because now they know that

In 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 tries to convince the other jurors that the defendant of the case, an 18 year old boy accused of stabbing his father to death, is not guilty based on a reasonable doubt. Throughout the film Juror #8 goes over the facts and details of the case to point out the flaws in the evidence in order to prove there is, in fact, a reasonable doubt. The film depicts the struggles of the underdog and going against the majority in order to stand up for what is right. In one scene, the piece of evidence being put into question is a testimony from an elderly man who lived below the boy and his father and claimed he heard the murder happen and saw the boy leave the apartment after it happened. It is being put into question whether the elderly man who walked with a limp could make it to his doorway in order to witness the boy running away from the crime in fifteen seconds.

noticed that another juror wore glasses just like one of the witnesses because of the marks on his nose

The murder weapon was supposedly a one-of-a-kind knife, but Juror 8 had the same knife in his pocket that he picked up at a pawn shop a few blocks away from the boy’s house. Even though buying and selling switchblades was illegal. Also, Juror 8 held a vote where if everyone voted guilty, Juror 8 would change his vote and send it into the judge. While Juror 9 was the one to change his vote and allow the talk to continue, it never would’ve happened if not for Juror 8. Lastly, Juror 8 took a risk by trying to put together all the witnesses’ testimony. He guessed at how long an el train took to pass a point and then put with the unlikelihood of the man hearing “I’m going to kill you.” All these claims could’ve meant a guilty verdict if not for Juror

After all, they 're about to send an eighteen year-old kid to the electric chair, and Juror #8 doesn 't want to do that without having a conversation first. He brings up certain details of the case that have been bothering him, but the other jurors want him to stop stalling so they can get on with the Guilty verdict. Among the main sources of evidence that the jurors have found compelling include the testimony of two key witnesses. The first was the testimony of the tenant living below the apartment where the defendant’s father had been killed, during which he stated that he heard the defendant say that he would kill the father and that he saw him soon afterwards fleeing the scene of the crime. A juror counters the evidence by stating that the boy claimed he had been at the movies while his father was murdered, but couldn’t remember the name of the movies or who was in them. The second key witness was a woman, who was living across the street, testified that she saw the boy kill his father through the windows of a passing elevated train. Aside from the considerations mentioned, the jurors also took it to be significant that the defendant had, that night, had an argument with his father, which resulted in the boy’s father hitting him twice, and that the boy has an extensive list of prior offenses, including trying to slash another teenager with a knife. Finally, the murder weapon recovered from the scene of

First, and arguably most important, Juror 8 is extremely bright. In Act III, the witness account of a woman who claims she witnessed the entire murder, and swears she saw the son kill the father. Juror 8 is quick to poke hole in her story. First, he points out that the woman wore glasses, and sense

However, questioning is precisely how strong her vision is to be able to clearly identify the witness more than a simple silhouette, “The woman wore bifocals...They looked quite strong.” Juror No.8 adds further to Juror No. 11’s statement, “...she wasn’t wearing them to bed. That’s for sure. She testified that in the midst of her tossing and turning...The murder was taking place as she looked out...She couldn’t have had time to put on her glasses… I say that she only saw a blur.” (Rose 29) this generalization based on the testimony and physical impression of the eyewitness creates an unstable account. The assumption is implied that the eyewitness may have only seen figments and cognitively associated the defendant and the now deceased who resided in the apartment. Juror No. 3 continuously objects asking questions repeatedly until the rebuttal from Juror No. 8 is simply looking at the other members and inquiring if anyone present believes there’s not reasonable doubt. Eventually Juror No. 8’s question is answered with a domino effect as the remaining jurors see reasonable doubt in each primary source attempting to prove the defendant

However, that wasn't the case because juror five stand up and told him that he was born in the slums and not everyone who is born in the sums become criminal’s. When the juror's started talking about the women testimony about seeing the boy stabbing his father. Juror nine points at juror twelve and tell him when you take off your glasses don't they leave marks behind on the sides of your nose and he responded with yes they do. He then makes an assumption that the women wears glasses because he saw those exact marks on the side of her nose in the courtroom. Than he perceives to say that maybe the women thought she saw the boy stabbing his own father at night. she woke up when she heard the scream and he supported his reason by asking the juror wearing the glasses if he sleeps with glasses on and he answer no I don't not one does and he said she wasn't wearing glasses so she doesn't know who she

Sense perception is a way to gain information by using our sense: touch, feel, taste, see, hear, and smell, it is a way of knowing. When it comes to ways of knowing, like sense perception, it is questionable whether or not it affects us in a positive or negative way. It can be argued if it is leading us in the wrong direction. If you see it, do you believe it?

The next point of view is from an ancient philosopher by the name of Plato. He believes that people are often detached from true reality. He claims that people oftentimes accept the world as it is first seen and we heavily rely on our senses to guide us, however, he points out that our senses are not necessarily reliable and that we need to use our reasoning abilities to find truth.

The one thing also happen when old men said to 4th jury that he saw the sign of eyewear on that woman’s nose. Then old man asked to 4th jury that you can’t see without these glasses then how can a lady in night can observe a person perfectly without glasses with the distance of 60 foot. Also when she is in sleepy condition. So without perfection of witness observation how can someone say that boy is the criminal, there may be other person also. If we consider a person without any perfection it will be unfair with him & also it is the question of that boy’s life also because if that boy’s crime will be proved he will be