Arguments In 12 Angry Men

Decent Essays

The Arguments of 12 Angry Men In the film 12 Angry Men (1957), directed by Sidney Lumet, is a film about a group of 12 jurors on a murder case. As the beginning of the film begins, the men are seen entering the deliberation room to come to a consensus on the case that was assigned. In the case, a young juvenile is being tried for the murder of his own father. If he is found guilty, the boy will be sent to the chair and will die by execution. If he is found not guilty then he will live. As the 12 jurors all sit down to make a beginning vote (aiming to create a unanimous consensus), only one of the men votes that the defendant is not guilty of the presented charges. Juror #8, the opposition to everyone, believes that there is reasonable doubt …show more content…

While some of the men accepted the flaws in the conviction, others, such as jurors #3 and #10, stood behind the conviction longer due to their own personal feelings- a false pathos appeal. Juror #3 believed the boy to be guilty because he thinks of him as his own son. After revealing the rough and tempered history between he and his son, it becomes apparent that he wants the convict to be his own son because of the fact that his own son left him. He gets very heated by this and eventually rips of the picture of his son in his wallet. Juror #10 also included his personal bias against the boy in an ignorant and generalized manner. Juror #10 presents the argument that the boy is from the slums and anyone from the slums are “no better than animals.” He keeps up this claim as his main argument, even after juror #5, who actually turns out to be from the slums, claims that everyone from the slums is a murderer. After presenting this argument on a multitude of occasions, when he tries to present it again, everyone in the room gets up and faces away from him, except for juror #4 who tells him to “sit down and don’t speak.” Though these arguments provided a strong emotional appeal, the repetition of the same argument became unacceptable and, in reality, very flawed. These flawed arguments aided the opposition due to the fact …show more content…

The argument started out with juror #8 stating that he didn’t know if the kid was guilty or not, he just believed that there were a lot of holes in the case that would lead him to believe there is reasonable doubt in the conviction. Though this seemed like a weak argument, there were many different key points that were made to undermine the original argument. Jumping from one fact to the next, juror #8 eventually persuaded the entire group to change their vote to not guilty. Juror #8, when presenting the various portions of his argument, always remains calm, as well as the other men who eventually join his side. Juror #4, though on the original position, actually provides a lot of this logical approach. He admits that the opposition makes sense and when the argument overrides his, he admits he is wrong and changes his vote. This type of argument, when proven with ethos and pathos, is successful and will gain logical support to win the overall

Get Access