{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

12 Angry Men.pdf - Eichman 1 Stephanie Eichman 3 April 2016...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Eichman 1 Stephanie Eichman 3 April 2016 Eng 102—Davis Analyze Movie Justice: Determined by Fact or Persuasion? Should the implications of evidence always serve as fact or can the truth be hidden, requiring a deeper analysis of the information in question? The 1957 American film, 12 Angry Men , recounts the tale of twelve men who debate the fate of an eighteen-year-old man accused of killing his father. If the jury reaches a unanimous guilty verdict, the defendant will face death by electric chair. If the jury is unable to reach an agreement, the defendant will be tried again and should the jury unanimously agree to a not guilty verdict, the young man will walk free. Juror 8, portrayed by Henry Fonda, faces much opposition from his fellow jurors; at the beginning of their deliberation, he is the only character in favor of a not guilty verdict. However, as time passes, Juror 8 convinces the remaining eleven men of the defendant’s innocence. Through the persuasive techniques of ethos, logos, and pathos, Juror 8 demonstrates that the presented evidence has been entirely circumstantial and sways all eleven men to change their vote to “not guilty.” To enhance his ability to argue effectively, Juror 8 employs ethos to make himself appear as a sensible, well-rounded man. Immediately, Juror 8 establishes that he is neither quick to jump to a decision nor does he discount the possibility that the young man truly did kill his father. When being pressured by the frantic Juror 7, Juror 8 responds by stating, “I’m not trying to change your mind, it’s just that we’re talking about somebody’s life here and we can’t decide in five minutes” (“12 Angry”). Juror 8 is careful to show that he wants to consider both sides of the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Eichman 2 argument; he is intent on considering whether the man is guilty and whether he is innocent. To maintain a neutral stance, Juror 8 does not attack Juror 7’s guilty position, but rather tries to reason that a quick judgment does not equal justice. As the debate in the jury room continues with no clear end, Juror 8 offers a proposition. He calls for a “secret, written ballet” and declares that, “if there are eleven votes for guilty…we’ll take in a guilty verdict to the judge right now” (“12 Angry”). With the exception of Juror 8, it is obvious that most of the men are in a rush to
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}