Essay on Twelve Angry Men

In logic, an argument is supported by good reason. Where an argument is not supported by any good reason, then the argument is regarded as a fallacy. There are different types of fallacies. Some of them include hasty generalization, appeal to force, and appeal to authority. Each of these fallacies has a specific basis that deems it a particular kind of fallacy. For example, a hasty generalization is an argument made without any reason behind it. Hence, an argument based on no reason belongs to the category of a hasty generalization. People often make fallacies in different settings. These fallacies can have undesired results in certain settings. In 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, some jurors make fallacies, which are not desirable given that they are obligated to deliver justice.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Some of the jurors make hasty generalizations throughout the play. For example, juror two says Oh well I think hes guilty. I thought it was obvious. (Reginald, 2006). Looking at this statement, it is easy to see that juror two had no good reason to support his argument. Just because his perception of the defendant was that he was obviously guilty does not imply that everyone else is of the same view. Also, juror two makes the mistake of assuming that since all the jurors have a common purpose in court, then they should all perceive similar thoughts. This shows that juror two did not put any serious thought to his reasoning.

Juror eight tries to reason with juror two to understand why he thinks it was so obvious that the defendant was guilty. However, juror two still does not seem to generate any evidence to support his argument. Juror two is confused and adamant at the same time. Well, sure-Ive heard of it. I know what it is I what I meant well, anyway I think hes guilty!, (Reginald, 2006) juror two says. Juror twos attitude and behavior cause him to fail in two of his obligations. First, he has no reason to support his argument and second, he does not seem to take the case seriously.

Juror seven also draws a hasty generalization as regards to whether the defendant is guilty. In act one, juror seven asserts, I think he is guilty. You couldnt change my mind if you talked for a hundred years. (Reginald, 2006). This is a very bold statement for individual who is supposed to review the facts of a case and then make his or her decision. Juror seven, therefore, fails in his obligation to support his argument with reasoning. Normally, when jurors decide that the defendant is actually guilty, this happens after careful evaluation of the case facts. Juror seven, however, makes this declaration even before they have gone through the facts. He does not even make any efforts to justify his argument. Instead, he keeps talking about matters that are irrelevant to solving the case. For example, he only finds it necessary to contribute when one of the jurors decides to close an open window. This implies he is not serious about the case.

Juror seven prefers to impose his opinion on other jurors with the aim of influencing their final decisions. To do this, he keeps repeating that the defendant is guilty no matter how long they continue their discussion. For example, in act one, he says, I dont know most of its been said already. We can talk all day about this thing, but I think were wasting our time. Due to his fixation on the decision that the defendant is guilty, he seems to avoid any positive aspects in the defendants background that could change the verdict. Instead, he focuses on the criminating facts. Look at this kids record. He stole a car. Hes been arrested for mugging. I think they said he stabbed somebody in the arm., (Reginald, 2006) he says.

In court, it is common for participants to sympathize with the defendant especially when he or she does not appear guilty. In the ply, some jurors exhibit to appeal to pity. However, jurors are tasked with the responsibility of using reason to reach a verdict. Hence, even when the defendant does not look guilty, they are not required to allow pitifulness to cloud their judgment. In the play, juror eight exhibits the fallacy of appeal to pity. This is seen in the many sympathetic statements he makes. For example, before they review the facts, juror eight says, I want to talk for a while. Look-this boys been kicked around all his life. You know living in a slum-his mother dead since he was nine. Thats not a very good head start. Hes a tough, angry kid. You know why slum kids get that way? Because we knock em over the head once a day, every day. I think maybe we owe him a few words. Thats all. (Reginald, 2006). This statement provokes disapproving looks from the rest of the jurors.

Advocates address the jury with the aim of finding favor for their clients. Juror eight often appears to assume the role of helping other jurors find favor with the defendant. By doing so, the juror violates the obligation of participating as an impartial judge instead of an advocate. He even goes on to comment about the strength of the defense counsel. He feels that the defense counsel has not conducted a thorough cross-examination thus leaving many questions unanswered. To highlight his sympathetic attitude towards the defendant, juror eight even modifies the evidence presented in the case. For example, when reviewing the events of the murder, juror eight chooses to change how the defendant was assaulted from slapped to punched.

Another juror who exhibits appeal to pity is juror six. This juror is very cautious about what he says. Therefore, he does not voice his opinions quite often. After the first act, the opinions of the jurors are almost equally divided. During this act, juror six only participates when the jurors are reviewing the evidence presented. During the first vote, he voted guilty. However, after this, he does not provide specific opinions to show why the defendant is guilty. This passive behavior provides juror six with the opportunity to intervene at a strategic time. I think maybe we should try another vote. Mr. Foreman? (Reginald, 2006). After the second vote, juror six changes his mind and votes not guilty.

The juror changes his mind but does not provide good reasoning. Instead, he provides a skeptical reason, which is aimed at steering away from the blame from the defendant. This is in violation of one of his obligations to provide a good reason once a juror changes his or her mind. He claims in his reason that, It would seem that the old man did not see the boy run downstairs. I do not think it likely that the old man heard someone scream, I am going to kill you. Old men dream. And if the boy did scream that he was going to kill, then we have the authority of this man-[motions at three]-to prove that it might not really mean hes going to kill. (Reginald, 2006). He also refers to juror three in a sarcastic way because juror three is focused on declaring the defendant guilty. Although this statement might not appear as deliberate by face value, the sarcastic tone shows juror sixs intention to change the opinion of other jurors.

Works Cited

About the Trial Process. Step 3: Jury Deliberations. The Judicial Branch of California: California Courts, 2016, Judicial council of California, www.courts.ca.gov 2240.html/tab2245. Accessed 5 Oct. 2016

Rose, Reginald. Twelve Angry Men. New York: Penguin Books, 2006. Internet resource.