12 Angry Men

847 Words4 Pages
Jonah Simon 7/22/15 Critical Thinking In the movie 12 Angry Men 12 men are jurors for a trial against boy for killing his father in 1957. After the lawyer gave their evidence trying to persuade the jurors to either send the boy to his death or set him free, during the deliberation there was some disagreement between the jurors.All the jurors had different argumentative styles but some were better than others, especially juror #3 and all the other jurors. He accuses the boy right off the bat without discussing any evidence with the other juror. Juror #7 is joining the majority verdict midway through the deliberation so he can go to his baseball game. Juror #8 made a bold statement in the beginning vote of the deliberation by voting not guilty against all the others. Lastly Juror #9 attention to detail played a big role in deciding the boys faith. Juror #3 is very biased against the boy that is being tried, and this affects all of his thoughts and actions involved in the case. He has this bias because his own son hit him in the jaw and ran away from home at the age of 15: “I’ve got a kid…when he was fifteen he hit me in the face…I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out [but it’s no use] (21).”According to this quote, this juror condemns all teenagers and feels resentment towards them. He especially feels strongly about the defendant, because the boy grew up in the slums, and this juror is also biased against these people who grew up there. It is because of these feelings that he is strongly cemented in his vote of guilty.Juror #3 is guilty of hasty generalization, because he does not really think about the facts given, he is thinking about an incident that he has gone through with his teenage son. Making him think that all teenagers are the same, which leads him to say that the boy being tried, is guilty right

More about 12 Angry Men

Open Document