The Argument For Critical Thinking

845 WordsAug 20, 20164 Pages
1) When the Judge admonished the Jury, he told them they must reach a unanimous decision beyond a reasonable doubt. The "hero" of this movie appears to be Henry Fonda, the first juror to vote "not guilty". He kept challenging the evidence by saying "isn 't it possible?"...that the evidence was wrong. Do some critical thinking on this...using a good paragraph answer if "isn 't it possible?" is the same thing as "beyond a reasonable doubt." Start with a “yes” or “no” and then eleaborate. No, “isnt it possible” and “beyond a reasonable” doubt are two different concepts, on different platforms of thought. Simply put, one is a question and one is a definitive statement. The statement, “isn’t it possible”is a question that begs for critical thinking and analysis of a situation; a question that seeks an answer, interpretation, and reflection. The stament “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a closed statement. This statement commits to the idea that there could be no other logical explanation for the situation (conviction at hand). The movie 12 Angry Men is based on the premise of that very question “isn’t it possible.” The initial scenes and first half of the movie depict a group of men who are convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the boy is guilty of movie. The mindset of these men was made up based on evidence that proves to be questionable. Henry Fonda convinces the men, through repeated series of questioning, that the boy is innocent. An individual convinced “beyond
Open Document