What questions about knowledge does the movie “12 Angry Men” raise?
Sidney Lumet’s American drama “12 Angry Men”, reveals the story of twelve members of a jury discussing the guilt or innocence of an eighteen year old boy who is accused of murder. Twelve jurors have to decided if the evidences that was presented in the courtroom is enough to convict the teen of murder of his own father and if so, the mandatory sentence for the young man will be a death penalty. Agreement on guilt or innocence among the 12 jurors is necessary in order to make a final verdict. However, as it is shown in the movie, the decision is not easy to make when different individuals with a different life experiences, perspectives and backgrounds have to come to a mutual …show more content…
Reasoning is the way in which humans are trying to make sense of things around them by using logic and rationality, or facts. An example of reasoning based on existing facts was presented to the viewer when Juror 8 was able to change the knowledge of the other eleven members of jury by placing the knife that he owned next to the one that has been presented in the courtroom and was considered unique. The knifes were perfectly identical which made juror's question their knowledge and make the viewer realise that things can be as unique as we want them to be, however, not as unique as we think they are. Now, what happens when the logic comes into reasonable thinking? When Juror 3 says: “Look, the old man heard the kid yell, “I’m gonna kill you.” A second later he heard the father’s body falling and he saw the boy running out of the house fifteen seconds after that”(15), we directly conclude that logically the defended is guilty. Witness testified that he had seen the accused fleeing from the crime scene immediately after his words “I’m gonna kill you” and the scream of an old man, which makes it seem like young man did commit the crime. However, does the language that we use, while being carried away by an emotion, always leads to an
Sidney Lumet’s American drama “12 Angry Men”, reveals the story of twelve members of a jury discussing the guilt or innocence of an eighteen year old boy who is accused of murder. Twelve jurors have to decided if the evidences that was presented in the courtroom is enough to convict the teen of murder of his own father and if so, the mandatory sentence for the young man will be a death penalty. Agreement on guilt or innocence among the 12 jurors is necessary in order to make a final verdict. However, as it is shown in the movie, the decision is not easy to make when different individuals with a different life experiences, perspectives and backgrounds have to come to a mutual …show more content…
Reasoning is the way in which humans are trying to make sense of things around them by using logic and rationality, or facts. An example of reasoning based on existing facts was presented to the viewer when Juror 8 was able to change the knowledge of the other eleven members of jury by placing the knife that he owned next to the one that has been presented in the courtroom and was considered unique. The knifes were perfectly identical which made juror's question their knowledge and make the viewer realise that things can be as unique as we want them to be, however, not as unique as we think they are. Now, what happens when the logic comes into reasonable thinking? When Juror 3 says: “Look, the old man heard the kid yell, “I’m gonna kill you.” A second later he heard the father’s body falling and he saw the boy running out of the house fifteen seconds after that”(15), we directly conclude that logically the defended is guilty. Witness testified that he had seen the accused fleeing from the crime scene immediately after his words “I’m gonna kill you” and the scream of an old man, which makes it seem like young man did commit the crime. However, does the language that we use, while being carried away by an emotion, always leads to an