Examples Of Fallacies In 12 Angry Men

The first three examples of a logical fallacies I found were committed by the lead character Juror 8 played Henry Fonda. First example, "Look, this kid's been kicked around all of his life. You know, born in a slum. Mother dead since he was nine. He lived for a year and a half in an orphanage when his father was serving a jail term for forgery. That's not a very happy beginning. He's a wild,

Juror #8 is a calm and reasonable man which makes it easier for him to judge the case fairly and justly without any prejudice. Juror #8 never said he believed the defendant to be innocent he only wanted to take the role of being a juror seriously and talk about the case before a young boy is sent off to die. “I’m not trying to change your mind it’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here… we can’t decide in five minutes.” Because he brings no prejudice in the jury room he is able to look at the facts and carefully decide on his judgement. Juror #8 recognizes other peoples prejudice and tries not to convince them that the boy is innocent but to have them let go of that prejudice and decide based on the facts whether they truly believe the defendant is guilty or not. Rose uses both juror

You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them! I mean what the heck? I don't even have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir! [Juror 10, page 51] This type of prejudice offended many of the other jurors, especially Juror 5 who is of similar race to the accused.

The last major fact that influences the juries agreement that the accused is not guilty are doubts of another witness’s testimony; the lady across the street who supposedly saw the accused young man stab his father. The jurors started talking about needing glasses to read the clock when Juror 8 realizes that the lady used very strong glasses and it is not possible that she could have had time to put them on and see the young man clearly stab his father. Juror 8 says,

An eyewitness testimony is unreliable because of many different things. Sometimes when witnesses see something they don’t see the whole crime, but only parts which could cause the wrong people to be in trouble. When it’s a serious crime the trial could take years and when asked to stand trial against the perpetrator the witness’s memory could not be fully correct anymore. You could forget important things or get mixed up with things you’ve seen somewhere else, like in a movie. Another reason they are unreliable is Because individuals with certain psychological disorders, like antisocial personality disorder and substance dependence, are at high risk for criminal involvement, they are also at high risk for false identifications by eyewitnesses.

I do agree that eyewitness testimony is not always reliable, because on my family history. Many people are doing time in jail or in a prison because of something he or she did not commit. People eyes can deceive them of what they thought they saw or seen. As well as a person might heard something they did not hear. With this in mind, everybody has perceptions. Mostly of the time the person perception of event of questioning is correct but mostly of the time it not. For instance, if a person can’t remember of what all she or he seen, they might go along with what the court official saying to fill in the empty spaces. This can cause a false testimony. Having a false testimony can destroy an innocent person’s life.

A lawyer may use the research that shows eye witness’s memory for details of crimes contains significant errors when evaluating their testimonies to show that they may be confused or lying. Eye witnesses are unreliable because when they are held under pressure they tend to forget the important details. “When a criminal perpetrator displays a knife or gun, a witness pays less attention to other details of the crime making them less likely to recall what actually occurred.” (pg. 223) This means the lawyer could state that the eye witness was too distracted by the danger of their life rather than watching what actually happened. “One reason eyewitnesses are prone to memory-related errors is that the specific wording of question posed to them by

Eyewitness testimony has been used for many centuries and continues to be a part of our criminal justice system. Although, there has been many controversy debates on whether to allow the continuation of these testimonies in court, and allow it to be used as evidence. Eyewitness testimony can either be harmful or useful for an individual. We must fully analysis and see what certain factors (psychological, and age wise) come into the equation before coming up with final conclusions.

The movie 12 Angry Men is about the murder mystery in which a nineteen year old son kills his father by putting knife in his chest. Then juries of 12 people discuss the case & decide the punishment for the son. A lot of fallacies are there in this movie.

In a United States courtroom, evidence is king. There are all different kinds of evidence that can be brought into court, and these types of evidence are statistical, anecdotal, analogical, and testimony. Testimony is defined by Merriam Webster dictionary as “something that someone says especially in a court of law while formally promising to tell the truth” (2014). During a trial, testimony is heard supporting both sides of the court, the prosecution and defense. Though some of that testimony is based on hard facts, or expert testimony (deemed an expert by the judge), some of it can be easily misconstrued, and some can be undeniable (such as expert testimony in relation to hard evidence such as DNA). But there remains one type of testimony that carries an unprecedented weight in a courtroom, and that is eyewitness testimony. Some of the problems associated with eyewitness testimony are that is it unreliable, and it is leading or suggestive to a jury. In this paper I am going to address these issues as well as explore some ethical issues around eyewitness testimony, how it can effect the presumption of guilt, and who should have the burden of proof under certain circumstances.

Someone who physically see something occur and can give a description of it is called an eyewitness. Eyewitness testimonies are often used in court cases to describe what happened during the crime. In many cases the judges values eyewitness testimonies because they were there and experienced it. An eyewitness testimony is a good source of information but many factors can affect the witness. In this essay I will discuss an eyewitness testimony in a well covered court

Eyewitnesses are vital in the court of law, first amid law enforcement examinations, subsequently a wellsprings of confirmation when legal proceedings are conveyed to trial. When assessing the reported accounts of eyewitnesses, the relative importance of concern should decide whether it is accurate or inaccurate. Not in the lab, nonetheless, it’s by and large unrealistic to check the substance of witness reports equitably. All things considered, the factor of confidence communicated by an eyewitness turns into a possibly helpful indicator to separate amongst exact and mistaken recollections. Therefore, in general there is an instinctive conviction when confidence is communicated around recollected memories may in fact be utilized to construe it as accurate or inaccurate, in between the overall population and by experts of the criminal justice system. The confidence communicated by an observer in his or her affirmation gives off an impression of being a solid determinant of the apparent believability of the eyewitness.

The reliability of eyewitness testimony has become a popular research topic in applied and social psychology since Loftus and Palmer’s study in 1974 (see Steblay, 1997; Wright & Loftus, 1998; Deffenbacher, Bornstein, Penrod, & McGorty, for reviews). Participants viewed videos or slides of traffic accidents (Loftus & Palmer, 1974) or a criminal act (Roediger, Jacoby, McDermott, 1996; Cutler, Penrod, & Martens, 1987) and afterwards were asked several questions about what they had just seen. The manipulation in studies was that the researchers did not ask the same question to all participant, but instead changed the wording of one critical detail in the question. In Loftus and Palmer’s study, some of the subjects were asked “About how fast

The old man gave evidence that he heard the boy say “I’ll kill you” from his apartment below and that he saw the boy running from the down the stairs from the apartment after rising from his bedroom. The old lady saw the boy kill his father through her window, whilst a train was passing. Juror #8 analyses each of these points and makes credible arguments that the conclusion is flawed based on incorrect reasoning, by pointing out inconsistencies in the conclusions reached. The other jurors are content to believe that their reasoning is solid, as they have used examples of deductive reasoning to reach their conclusion. Juror #3 gives his reasons for reaching the conclusion that “It’s quite clear that the boy never went to the movies that night, returned home and killed his father with the knife as identified in Court” (Fonda & Lumet, 1957). Until Juror #8 takes out a similar knife and poses the question that it was possible that another knife was used, Juror #7 calls it a million to one however Juror #8 persists in saying it was possible. He also uses this analysis method to cast aspersions on the second point and third points raised by systematically analyzing each component.

An eyewitness is a person who witnessed a particular crime or situation. AlleyDog.com defines an eyewitness testimony as “a situational account of a witness of what is typically a crime or an accident. It is a legal term that essentially describes when a witness or victim is recounting their firsthand experience to another person or to a court.” Research has shown that a testimony can be incorrect due factors such as stress, outside peers, misleading question and loss of memory (1998-2017). These things must be taken into account so that a jury does not put an innocent person in prison. A reliable witness should have the main characteristics; adequate perception, have a good memory and report it well, must able and willing to tell the truth