1.Appeal to Emotion (Ad Misericordiam)
a.The first fallacy from Twelve Angry Men is an example of Appeal to Emotions. The latin term for this fallacy is Ad Misericordiam.
b.Appeal to Emotion is when a person uses “evidence” that elicits emotion from the reader to “support” their argument.
c. The character who committed this fallacy was the Architect.
d.The Architect commits Appeal to Emotion by saying, “He’s eighteen years old.”
e.When the Architect said the boy was only eighteen he was stressing that the boy in manys ways was still a child; according to several jury members this does not excuse the boy. The Architect was letting pathos guide his decision and not logos. Instead of trying to sway the group by pointing out that he
…show more content…
The jurors need to look at the facts of the case rather than the boy being young. Justice is supposed to be blind. The Architect was being subjective which is important to realize, when justice is supposed to be objective. Later in the film the jury finds the boy not guilty based on the facts in the case, not based on his …show more content…
d.The Stockbroker uses Guilt by Association when he said, “Slums are breeding grounds for criminals.”
e.The stockbroker, by saying this, is insinuating that the boy is automatically a criminal because he lives in the slums. He should have stated the slums have a high crime rate and most of the crimes are committed by the slum’s youth. This makes his statement a fact rather than a fallacy.
f.What the stockbroker said was important in the film, because it made some of the other jurors think that the boy was guilty due to the fact that he was raised in the slums. The stockbroker is stereotyping the boy by grouping him with every other youth that lives in the slums. The youth in the slums are not all criminals; they are different people with different traits, which are unique to each individual. Looking at the evidence is the only way to tell if the boy committed the crime.
3.Change for Change’s Sake (Argumentum and Novitatem)
a.The third fallacy from Twelve Angry Men is Change for Change’s Sake otherwise known as Argumentum and Novitatem.
b.Change for Change's Sake is changing something without any support to back up why the change was
Juror 8 had many chances to change his opinion about the boy’s case, and yet he never did. Throughout this whole play, Juror 8 stood his ground and was
With this prejudice, the juror was putting a boy’s life at risk. Instead of seeing an innocent boy, he saw his son, and this was prejudice, blinding him. With no real points to defend why the boy is guilty, the juror was reminded that the boy on trial was not his son. “‘It’s not your
Rhetorical appeal is intended to persuade individuals to think a certain way, conduct themselves in a certain manner, or the purchase particular products. Unlike speech in which an individual relies on their persona and content of speech to get their point across to an audience or consumer, advertisements use images to enhance the impact and appeal of logos, ethos, and pathos.
The 3rd juror from the drama “Twelve Angry Men” is another character that play an important role in the drama. Throughout the drama he argues hi point that the boy is guilty. To him it's clear that the boy is guilty because in a democracy you must decide based on the evidence given. In the drama “Twelve Angry Men” page 103 paragraph 82 - 83 it states “ I really think this is one of those open and shut things.” The 3rd juror is sharing his opinion that he thinks the boy is guilty based on the evidence he heard. The 3rd juror treats the accused a if he was a adult because of the crime he committed. He believes that the accused should be trialed as an adult and he receive the full punishment. In the drama “Twelve Angry Men” page 102 paragraph 75 - 76 it states “ I mean, lets be reasonable. You sat in court and heard the same things we did. The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it.” The 3rd juror is stating that in
Twelve Angry Men, is a play written by Reginald Rose. The play is about the process of individuals and a court case, which is determining the fate of a teenager. It presents the themes of justice, independence and ignorance. Rose emphasises these three themes through the characters and the dialogue. Justice is the principle of moral rightness or equity. This is shown through juror number eight who isn’t sure whether or not the boy is actually innocent or guilty, but he persists to ask questions and convinces the other jurors to think about the facts first. Independence is shown through both juror number three and ten. They both believe that the defendant is guilty until they both realise that they can not relate there past experiences with
Through the flawless use of the rhetoric, Atticus Finch speaks persuasively and wins over the jury during his concluding argument of the trial of Tom Robinson. As a lawyer, Mr. Finch understands how to speak effectively and persuasively, allowing him to make use of compositional techniques like rhetoric. He uses all three parts of rhetoric, logos, ethos, and pathos, to help him coax the jury to side with him. Although the emerges unsuccessful, he perfectly illustrates examples of rhetoric and the different ways to use it. Atticus cunningly convinces the jury of Tom Robinson’s innocence by appealing to them through the rhetoric.
This case was one of truth and justice. It becomes evident when the Juror 9 says to Juror 10. Do you think you have a monopoly on truth?' [Juror 9, page 8] The fact is, nobody really knows what the truth is, and at the end of the play, still nobody does. The boy may have been guilty, but as Juror 8 pointed out, who were they to make that assumption? Most of the Jurors had taken for granted that what the prosecution had told them was the truth. Through much discussion the Jurors realised that this may
The play showed the theme of “Stereotyping in the World” through the characters’ proper reasoning, communicating, and believing in good faith. Twelve Angry Men allowed the views of many different men to see past the outside of a person and look at who they actually are. The play will put the test of each of the jurors’ character and show that the clear theme in the play is “Stereotyping in the World.” The boy has been out in a life where he has no other way out of the setting and must live in. Even though he lives in the area does not mean that he is that category and so does the
The Little Brother screamed to be released from the care. Once the Teenage Son was aware of the brother being in the car he (1a) acted to keep boy in the car for several miles, (1b) this action by the Teenage Son directly kept the Little Brother in the confinement of the moving vehicle before releasing him, and (1c) the little brother wanted to be out of the vehicle. The elements for false imprisonment have been met.
There are three types of conflict are shown within the film Twelve Angry Men. Pseudo, simple, and ego are the three types of interpersonal conflict displayed by the twelve jurors. In the small group of twelve jurors, each member of the jury is involved in at least one of the three types of conflict. Beginning with juror number eight, the first man to vote not guilty in the case, he was the first to start a conflict.
6. It is Jack’s lack of a stable, male role model that is to blame for his actions. To what extent do you agree?
A boy may die,” and changes his vote to “not guilty” which is another instance where the boy gets a fair trial. The 12th and 7th juror find it difficult to decide on which way to vote and therefore vote “not guilty” so that the boy is not “sent off to die.” The 12th juror’s lack of a defined and consistent point of view reflects America’s post war materialism. The 4th juror believed that the defendant was guilty for most of the play but then was the 2nd last juror to change his vote and admitted that he had a “reasonable doubt.” Although the audience never finds out whether the defendant was “guilty” or “not guilty” the jurors give the “kid from the slums” an honest trial.
Juror 3 was basing his failed relationship with his son on the accused boy. The reason that he had such a bad relationship with his son is because when the boy was young, he ran away from a fight and Juror 3 said: “I’m going to make a man out of you or I’m going to bust you up into little pieces trying”. Later on, when his son was older, they got into a fight and Juror 3 hasn’t seen him since. This experience probably left him the impression that all kids take their loved ones for granted, and that they deserve severe punishments. Juror 3 is not the type to provide the sharpest evidence or information, but he is very determined to prove that the accused really did murder the victim. Juror 8 practically gives nothing away about his real life, probably because he did not want to add his own prejudices to the case. Juror 3 gave both his ill-mannered personality and bigotry away in the play.
“A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a 19-year-old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are shaky include the height of the father, the woman who saw from the el train, and the old man who saw the boy running down from the stair. Based on these, the boy is not guilty.
The capacity of human beings to possess different viewpoints, opinions beliefs and choices is what draws the line between man and animal. During the course of Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, the viewer sees exactly what makes up the unique and complex nature of man and how these individualities can compare and contrast when combined. The message she conveyed by her depictions of the opinions of each of the jurors was that with twelve different people comes twelve different viewpoints that everyone included can learn from. By using the Marxist and Historical lens, it reveals that even though the jurors are seen as a collective, their individuality is what propels the story into a study of human nature and interpersonal communication.