Vaccaro 1

Francesca Vaccaro
Dr. Chavez
Informal Logic
3/9/18
In-Class Activity
12 Angry Men

1. The pieces of evidence that pointed to the guilt of te accused were:

a. The knife
b. The accused’s mismatching story
c. The testimony of the elderly man
d. The testimony of the woman across the street who “saw him do it.”

a. The Knife
- According to the men (and presumably, what was alleged in court), the
knife used in the murder was the same knife the boy had bought earlier
that day. HOWEVER, Juror #8 used critical thinking and investigated
the accuracy of the claim on his own. It was then that Juror #8 produced
the same exact knife as the accused, disproving that the knife purchased
by the accused was the only of that kind.

b. The Mismatched Story

- When questioned, the accused maintained that he could not have
committed the murder, as he was at the movies at the time it took place.
However, when asked which movie he saw and who was in it, the boy
could not produce an answer. While this initially “proved” his guilt to
the majority of the jury, Juror #8 pointed out that at the time of the
questioning,

1. During the movie, it is probable that the boy was under emotional
duress following the fight
2. At the time of the questioning, the boy was being drilled while his
father’s dead body lie in the other room.
3. Therefore- rending the boy incapable of discerning facts of the
movie.

c. The Elderly Man’s Testimony

- While the elderly man was not intentionally lying, Juror #9 points out
that he may falsely remember evidence due to the social importance he
is given during the trial. A man who has been paid no mind in life is
more than happy to jump up and relay any and all information.
- The man had a limp… Therefore, (and as proven by Juror #8’s display)
it is physically improbable that he could have sprung from his bed,
limped/walked through the hallway, and unlocked the door in the
allotted 15 second timeframe. Therefore, he could not have SEEN the
 Vaccaro 2

boy, rather, he heard the body fall and the sound of footsteps and
assumed it was the boy.
d. The Woman Across the Way’s Testimony
- The neighbor across the way lives right next to the L Train. She asserted
that through the window, she could see the murder take place. Juror #9
points out that she has glasses marks and must wear glasses. Therefore,
it is probable to assume that she does not sleep in her glasses, and when
the murder took place, was not wearing them, leaving her incapable of
clearly discerning the murderer.

2. Throughout this film, there was a treasure trove of Logical Fallacies. I shall provide a list
of Fallacies, the definition and a few quotes.
a. LOOK WHO’S TALKING FALLACY
- Speaker 1 offers a critique/suggestion/opinion however, they do it and
are hypocritical.
- “Of-course he committed the murder. He’s a common, ignorant slob. He
don’t even speak good English.”
-
b. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE
- Arguing that a lack of evidence proves something
- “Well, the kids lawyer didn't prove that he's innocent, so he must be
guilty.”

c. HASTY GENERALIZATION
- Makes an assumption concerning a population due to a sample.
- “We're not here to go into the reasons why slums are breeding grounds
for criminals. They are. I know it.”

d. APPEAL TO PITY
- This type of fallacy uses the audiences' sympathy, concern, or guilt in
order to overwhelm their sense of logic
- “The kid is not guilty because he's had a troubled upbringing.”

e. SCARE TACTICS
- Something bad will happen if you do not accept the argument
- “If we let this kid go free, they'll be a murderer roaming the streets.”

f. AD HOMINEM
- A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in
dispute
- “ You're all a bunch of old ladies if you don't see that this kid is guilty.”

g. STEREOTYPING
 Vaccaro 3

- Judging someone on the basis of one's perception of the group to which

that person belongs
- Those kinds of kids run wild and are the ones going around committing
crimes.

h. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
- A fallacy in which a speaker or writer seeks to persuade by appealing to
the respect people have for a famous person or institution
- “Since I'm an old man like the witness, I know what he's thinking and
going through.”
- “What little things? Listen, when these fellas don't ask questions it's
because they know the answers already and they figure they'll be hurt.”

i. RED HERRING
- A bad argument that does not follow the sequence of current logic - One
juror:
- “The kid is guilty because he was seen fleeing the scene.” Another juror:
“I once saw a movie scene starring fleas, A Bug's Life.”

3. In the scope of law, the jury’s duty is to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This
means, if there is even an inclination of the accused having not committed the crime, the
jury should not vote “guilty”. In the beginning of the movie, 11 of the 12 jurors made a
snap judgement. However, as Juror #8 brought up points and explanations, each juror
came to find holes in the witness’ stories and a shadow of doubt cast. Therefore, I agree
with the final verdict of “not guilty”.

4. In my opinion, the takeaways of the film are:

a. Critical Thinking is essential
- Without Juror #8’s unbending will to facilitate a critical thinking
approach to the case, the boy would have been found guilty without a
second thought.
b. Bias
- Throughout the film, Juror #3 and Juror #10 showed their biased
motives behind their guilty vote, highlighting a societal issue of bias and
stereotyping.

c. Justice is blind
- In order to find true justice, we must open our eyes to critical thinking
and facts, and close them to personal motives and frames of thought.

5. Being that this movie was filmed and produced in 1957, the bias against women and their
mental and emotional capabilities was alive and well. In this time, men assumed that
women were too emotional to decide, and, jury duty would take time away from
women’s motherly duties. Therefore, there were no female jurors.
 Vaccaro 4

6. Personally, I find this movie to lend me a mixed bag of emotions toward the jury system.
It has lowered my confidence in the sense that common every-day people who may not
understand legal jargon are given the responsibility of deciding an individual’s fate. I find
this to be daunting. However, the relentless pounding of evidence and critical thinking by
Juror 8 calms my nerves slightly. I feel that if most jurors act in this way, justice is
preserved.

7. The film underscores the practicality of Critical Thinking because it displays

Avoiding Manipulation- Juror 8 would not bend to the will of the masses.

Admitting When You Don’t Know Something- the Jurors acknowledged that
some of them did not fully understand evidence, and the witnesses could have
misreported.

Bringing Ideas to the Table- the jurors continuously came up with theories, going
as far as re-enacting the elderly man’s time frame for witnessing the murder.