The Second Fallacy: Red Herring (No Latin)

The jury really didn’t seem to remember the most important piece of information which was that the defendant’s blood was actually found at the crime scene. Bugliosi said “From the moment O.J. Simpson became a suspect in this double murder case, it was in the air, perhaps as in no other case within

* When the 12 person jury meets in the room to vote on a guilty or non-guilty verdict, the method used to vote was 1st based on a majority decision-making process where those would raise their hands for guilty and a non-guilty verdict. Once the results were in and 11 voted guilty and 1 voting not guilty. Based on the movie, 11 members of the jury voted guilty while 1 juror voted non-guilty. The 1 non-guilty, disrupted the dynamics of everyone else’s vote; which leads to a major conflict. They now needed to illustrate the pros and cons of both guilty and non-guilty parties.

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

Another very important juror in the jury room was Juror 9. Juror 9 was a fair man. He voted not

The pack of gum is used to divert the viewers' attention from the actual product while creating a sense of flavored chewing fun at the same time (apple computer, 2006). This diversion tactic is known as the red herring fallacy. The red herring fallacy is when an object or idea whose sole purpose is to provide a distraction from the main issue at hand (gassham et al, 2002)

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

From there the viewers see that the 12 Jurors retire to a private room where they briefly become acquainted before the deliberation begins. It is clear to the viewers that even before deliberation begins that there are clear biases among the Jurors. The Jurors number off and give their verdicts, and almost right off the bat all the Jurors, aside from one (Juror #8), vote guilty – and they also make it clear that they plan to deliver said verdict without forethought, on Henry Fonda (Juror #8) is the opposing vote of not guilty. His vote of not guilty

During the first trial, the fact that McCormick confessed to the crime was too much for the jury to come to a conclusion that McCormick was not guilty. A juror in the first trial, Anita Jinette, stated, “Mr. McCormick’s reputation as a liar was too important for us to believe his testimony that he was innocent, we basically had nothing but his confession.”

     On August 2nd, after two hours and 47 minutes of deliberation, the jury came back with “not guilty” verdicts for the players. Judge Hugo Friend agreed stating that it a just verdict and in legalese admitting that the case of “intent to defraud the public” was near impossible to prove.

Logical Fallacies can be found in many forms of persuasions, in infomercials, political debates, common discussion, everywhere. Although Logical Fallacies are very common, they mar our arguments and should be avoided. In order to avoid them we must first learn to recognize them. To fully understand Logical Fallacies, we will look at the definition of Logical Fallacies, some examples of Logical Fallacies, classifications of Logical Fallacies, and finally why we should, and how we can, avoid them.

Angry! Hostile!” This causes him to not listen to the other jurors opinions and block out any idea of the defendant being innocent. His prejudice is further understood when he says “this kid is guilty. He’s got to burn. We’re letting him slip through our fingers here.” Juror #3 is only able to see the young boy on trial as a symbol of his own son and is therefore unable to look past his own anger towards his son and see the case for what it really is. It is only through the help of juror #8 does juror #3 finally let go of his personal prejudice and sees the truth about the case and changes his vote to not guilty.

The Panel asked Mr. Manson why they didn’t order to recuse if they thought the judge was being unfair and he stated that he didn’t know. He thought that they all wanted the case tried and to move forward. He reluctantly agreed that they were a bunch of old bird trial lawyers that were tough and maybe that is the way the judge should have been but maybe he went too far.

In the movie 12 Angry Men, juror number 8 (Henry Fonda) was not sure if evidence presented...

Next, the jurors argue about “He didn’t have any ticket stub. Who keeps a ticket stub at the movies?”(18 Rose) Now they're arguing if he really went to the movies to see if he is really guilty or not. Next, when they talk about the knife they said” Where did you get it? I got it in a little junk shop around the corner from the boy’s house.

Most career politicians have mastered the red herring technique, that is to say; they appeal to emotion of a receiver in order to distract from a main issue and in turn manipulate sentiment into order to persuade the outcome of a topic without providing factual evidence.