12_Angry_Men

= =

Juror #4 E.G Marshall
He makes a hasty generalization fallacy: "that boy was born in _ __street, everyone in that street does those things!!" E.G Marshall assumes that the boy commited the crime because the town that he is born and raised has the reputation of commiting crimes. This is a hasty generalizaiton. ( **Hasty generalization** is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence.) He is very stubborn(we can also see this when he claims that he is not hot) and considered the kid guilty until the last moment. He was finally convinced when one of the Jurors started questioning the eyesight of the old lady that saw "the boy kill his father".
 * "Well-educated, smug and conceited, well-dressed stockbroker, presumably wealthy; studious, methodical, possesses an incredible recall and grasp of the facts of the case; common-sensical, dispassionate, cool-headed and rational, yet stuffy and prim; often displays a stern glare; treats the case like a puzzle to be deductively solved rather than as a case that may send the defendant to death; claims that he never sweats."**

Marshall does says many fallacies. Number one is hasty generalization: "that boy was born in ___ street, everyone in that street does those things!!" E.G Marshall assumes that the boy commited the crime because the town that he is born and raised has the reputation of commiting crimes." __He also makes a mistake when setting an appeal to ignorance;__ ** "no one proved otherwise." marshall is sure about his position, although he started to doubt when he couldn't remember the names of movies he have seen. **

Juror #8 Henry Fonda
He constantly makes the use of attack on the person and appeal to pity. "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." This is an example of Fonda's use of appeal to pity.
 * "An architect, instigates a thoughtful reconsideration of the case against the accused; symbolically clad in white; a liberal-minded, patient truth-and-justice seeker who uses soft-spoken, calm logical reasoning; balanced, decent, courageous, well-spoken and concerned; considered a do-gooder (who is just wasting others' time) by some of the prejudiced jurors"**

- Eun Jie Lee-

Fonda Is constantly using appeal to pitty in order to set his point. He tries to set the idea of the poor and defenseless kid who murdered his parent: __"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."

I know it is the same as Eun Jies, but this is the most relevant example.

Fonda also uses hypothetical reasonign: ** one has impressions on her nose, then she must wear glasses. If she wears glasses, her eyesight is probably poor. If her eyesight is probably poor, then her testimony is questionable. ** __ **The woman who testified had impressions on her nose** **__. Therefore, her testimony is questionable. __**

**Ricardo Hedman**
=Juror # 1 Martin Balsam = == He is a High School Football Coach which most of the time is the one that tries to maintain order. He is the one that counts the votes. Fallacies__: He changes his mind after the explanation of how the stabbing occurred. This indicates that's //False Cause.// He is the one in charge most of the time, and most of what he says is done, which indicates that it may be related to //Appeal to Authority. **Juror #8 Henry Fonda** //__== = Fallacies: He describes the child as young and helpless. This is //Appeal to Pity//. Henry Fonda was the only one to not say guilty therefore he will change everyones mind to not guilty. //Slippery Slope.// =

= = = = =Victor Garcia Pineda=

Juror # 3 - Lee J. Cobb
Lee J. Cobb was the last one to believe that the boy was not guilty. He was stubborn and at last gave into believing the kid was not guilty because of a connection Henry Fonda made with him and his own son. His argument was based on the mere presumed actions. he lacked deepness and attention of all of the possible things that could have happened.

**[|Juror #3]**: ASSUMED? Brother, I've seen all kinds of dishonesty in my day, but this little display takes the cake. Y'all come in here with your hearts bleedin' all over the floor about slum kids and injustice; you listen to some fairy tales; suddenly you start gettin' through to some of these old ladies... well, you're not getting through to me, I've had enough! WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH YOU GUYS? You all know he's guilty. He's got to burn! You're letting him slip through our fingers. == Examples of Fallacies **Appeal to Force**: -“ Aah. When he was nine years old he ran away from a fight. I saw it; I was so embarrassed I almost threw up. I said, " I'm gonna make a man outa you if I have to break you in two tryin'". __And I made a man out of him. When he was sixteen we had a fight. Hit me in the jaw - a big kid. Haven't seen him for two years. Kids... work your heart out...__ ” **Hasty Generalization**: “ It's these kids - the way they are nowadays.”  ==
 * [|Juror #3]**: I'm one of 'em!
 * [|Juror #3]**: For this kid? You bet I would!
 * [|Juror #3]**: I'll kill him! I'LL KILL HIM!
 * [|Juror #3]**: Wait a minute. What are you trying to give us here? The phrase was "I'm gonna kill you." The kid yelled it at the top of his lungs! Don't tell me he didn't mean it. Anybody says a thing like that the way he said it, they mean it.
 * [|Juror #3]**: Well... say something! You lousy bunch of bleedin' hearts. You're not goin' to intimidate me - I'm entitled to my opinion!

Juror # 8 - Henry Fonda
Henry was the only one that stood up that the boy was not guilty. He never gave into peer pressure and always questioned the others fallacies.His argument was based on the deep study of situations and expect the unexpected.

[|Juror #8]: It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we're just gambling on probabilities - we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don't know. Nobody really can. But we have a reasonable doubt, and that's something that's very valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's SURE. We nine can't understand how you three are still so sure. Maybe you can tell us. **[|Juror #8]**: I feel sorry for you... what it must feel like to want to pull the switch.
 * [|Juror #8]**: We want to hear your arguments.
 * [|Juror #8]**: Look, there was one alleged eye witness to this killing. Someone else claims he heard the killing, saw the boy run out afterwards and there was a lot of circumstantial evidence. But, actually, those two witnesses were the entire case for the prosecution. Supposing they're wrong?
 * [|Juror #8]**: I'd like to ask you something: you don't believe the boy's story; how come you believe the woman's? She's one of 'them', too, isn't she?

E xamples of Fallacies
Source :[] = = = = =Eun Young Jeon=  Jack Warden portrayed a stubborn character at the beginning. He is one of the characters that talk a lot but his words are just negative remarks towards other juror, especially towards Henry Fonda (juror #8). He’s remarks are mostly sarcastic and ironic. I could easily identify him because he wore a hat and ate a gum. Jack Warden said that the boy was guilty but did not give a reason why, he just followed the majority. The first fallacy he says is the following: //“Suppose the whole building fell off…”// This could be irrelevant conclusion, converse accident, or ambiguity but I think that irrelevant conclusion best fits this fallacy. He still doesn’t change his view of the boy, and thinks he’s guilty. Jack Warden mentions another fallacy which is fairly easy to point out. //“The kid robbed, threw a rock to a teacher…”// This fallacy is attack on the person or fallacy of stereotyping. He is saying that just because this kid has had a bad attitude in the past, he is the criminal. As the movie goes on, Jack Warden changes his opinion, his vote to “not guilty.” As the juror next to him, Henry Fonda points out about the knife, that the knife was actually very common and not ‘rare.’ The last fallacy mentioned is, “//He’s not guilty because I don’t think he’s guilty//.” This is the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. He thinks the boy is not guilty just because he is not guilty.  Henry Fonda is the only juror that has a different opinion at the beginning. He thinks that the jurors should take the case more seriously because it’s a matter of life and death in this situation. He thinks that there’s a possibility that the boy might be not guilty so he votes “not guilty.” He is a well dressed (neat) architect and he stands up for his beliefs and thoughts. He says that “It’s not science! It’s not perfect!” He mentions evidence about the knife. Henry Fonda had bought a similar knife to prove that the knife was actually common and not rare as it had been said. He also mentions another evidence to re-discuss. He says that the woman couldn’t have heard because the train was passing. A fallacy he points out is the following: //“How come you believed the woman’s story? She’s one of them too, isn’t she?”// This is a fallacy of attack on the person. He points out this because the jurors believe only the woman’s words and evidence. At the end, Henry Fonda was right, the evidence of the woman was just not convincing. She had said that she had seen the boy but she wasn’t wearing her glasses.
 * Appeal to Pity**: “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, angry kid, and that's all he's ever been. And you know why, because he's been hit on the head by somebody once a day, every day. He's had a pretty miserable eighteen years. I just think we owe him a few words, that's all.”
 * Juror #7- Jack Warden **
 * Juror #8- Henry Fonda **

=Sheila Sierra=
 * "Juror #7:** (Jack Warden) Clownish, impatient salesman (of marmalade the previous year), a flashy dresser, gum-chewing, obsessed baseball fan who wants to leave as soon as possible to attend evening game; throws wadded up paper balls at the fan; uses baseball metaphors and references throughout all his statements (he tells the foreman to "stay in there and pitch"); lacks complete human concern for the defendant and for the immigrant juror; extroverted; keeps up amusing banter and even impersonates James Cagney at one point; votes with the majority [7]" (Dirks, 2009)

Jack Warden seems like a very sarcastic, ironic person, full of immature and inconsiderate comments and when it finally comes to accepting that the boy is not guilty, he seems to change his opinion in a non conviced way, as if not sure, or simply not wanting to accept the truth.

His fallacies:

Attack on the person and fallacy of stereotyping:
 * "This boy threw a rock at a car, was arrested at the age of fifteen...so this indicates that he is guilty..."


 * "Juror #8:** (Henry Fonda) An architect, instigates a thoughtful reconsideration of the case against the accused; symbolically clad in white; a liberal-minded, patient truth-and-justice seeker who uses soft-spoken, calm logical reasoning; balanced, decent, courageous, well-spoken and concerned; considered a do-gooder (who is just wasting others' time) by some of the prejudiced jurors." (Dirks, 2009)

henry Fonda was brave, patient and persuasive enough to convince all the jurors that the boy was not guilty about the death of his father. He knew it since the beginning and always supported the poor boy. Although he is right about the boy not being guily, in order to support his evidence and opinion, he uses fallacies. One identified was appeal to pity: “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, angry kid, and that's all he's ever been. And you know why, because he's been hit on the head by somebody once a day, every day. He's had a pretty miserable eighteen years. I just think we owe him a few words, that's all.”

Source: []

=**(( Myriam E. Vijil ))**= ​

-A typical "working man," dull-witted, experiences difficulty in making up his own mind, a follower; probably a manual laborer or painter; respectful of older juror and willing to back up his words with fists -At first believes the boy is guilty -He says he looks for a “motive” –a testimony from people living in front of the boy’s apartment -Changes his mind and thinks the boy id not guilty after Fonda exposes his point of view
 * Edward Binns (#6) **

-Believes from the start that the boy is not guilty - “It’s not easy to raise my hand and send this boy to death without talking about it” -Proposes an hour to carefully think about the trial - Accuses one of the jurors saying, “you believed the women’s story but not the kid’s” -“This boy has been hit all his life, violence is normal. Two slaps in the face couldn’t have provoked him to murder his father” -“There is not fair enough cross examination. I put myself in the kid’s place. I would have asked for another lawyer.” - “The witnesses can be wrong” - “A testimony that could put that boy in the electric chair should be //that// accurate.” -“You want to see this boy dead because you want to pull the switch not because of the fact.” -“No jury can declare a man guilty if they’re not sure. A reasonable doubt is enough not to declare him guilty.”
 * Henry Fonda (#8) **

Begging the Question: “He’s guilty; you can see it in his face” Hasty Generalization: “They’re born liars.” Irrelevant Conclusion: “You heard a thump. Someone called ‘I’m gonna kill you.’ He’s definitely guilty.” Hasty Generalization: “Slumbs are breeding grounds for criminals.”
 * Fallacies **

Janghun Y
Juror #10 Ed Begley __ Description: A garage owner, who simmers with anger, bitterness, racist bigotry; nasty, repellent, intolerant, reactionary and accusative; segregates the world into 'us' and 'them'; needs the support of others to reinforce his manic rants. He was the last three jurors that believed the boy is guilty. He is s very agressive man like the juror #3 and rest of jurors don't want to listen to his argument becuase his argument is full of bias and fallacy. Almost at the end of the moive, other juors turned their head and refused to listen to what he's saying. He was frustrated, and eventually admitted that the boy's not guilty.

[Fallacies]

It's pretty tough to figure, isn't it? A kid kills his father. Bing! Just like that... It's the element... I'm telling ya, they let those kids run wild up there. Well, maybe it serves 'em right. (Hasty Generalization)

Look, these people're lushing it up and fighting all the time and if somebody gets killed, so somebody gets killed! They don't care! Oh, sure, there are some good things about 'em, too. Look, I'm the first one to say that. (Hasty Generalization

"The boy don't even speak english properly" (Attack on the Person)

[Argument]

Juror 8, Henry Fonda was arguing that the boy lived with difficult situation. " 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, angry kid, and that's all he's ever been. And you know why, because he's been hit on the head by somebody once a day, every day. He's had a pretty miserable eighteen years. I just think we owe him a few words, that's all."__

Jose G.
Juror #8 Fallacies // 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, angry kid, and that's all he's ever been. And you know why, because he's been hit on the head by somebody once a day, every day. He's had a pretty miserable eighteen years. I just think we owe him a few words, that's all.(Appeal to Pity) //

// "How come you believed the woman's (story)? She's one of them, too, isn't she?" (Attack on the Person) // // “You want to kill him, you’re a sadist!” (Attack on the Person) // // “He’s been hit in the head everyday of his life” (Appeal to Pity) // Argument (s) // We can assume that the body hit the floor just as the train went by. Therefore, the train had been roaring by the old man's window a full ten seconds before the body hit the floor. The old man according to his own testimony ("I'm gonna kill you, body hitting the floor a split second later") would have had to hear the boy make this statement with the el roaring past his nose. //// It's not possible he could have heard it. //

Juror #12 Fallacies // “Let him speak. Anyways, he’s wrong and we’re right” // // I bet he figured no one would find the body. I mean, it was the middle of the night. (Irrelevant Conclusion) //

Mariana Delgado
//**Juror #11: George Voskovec**//

This judge does not participate a lot throughout the entire movie as other judges do but makes very interesting points. He is the one who spoke with juror #7 and told him after saying he decides the boy is not guilty, "You change your vote because you have a game ticket burning in your pocket. You can't vote "not guilty" because everybody thinks he's not guilty." Juror #11 is "an immigrant watchmaker, proud to be a naturalized American citizen 1." He "speaks with a heavy accent, of German-European descent, a recent refugee and immigrant; expresses reverence and respect for American democracy, its system of justice, and the infallibility of the Law Juror eleven is the fourth person to change his mind from guilty to 'not guilty' after hearing Fonda's doubts2." He questions why "would the boy return home if he had killed his father?" as well as states that he believes he should not be loyal to one side, "I have my doubts."

// **Juror #8: Henry Fonda** //

__"Is an architect, instigates a thoughtful reconsideration of the case against the accused; symbolically clad in white; a liberal-minded, patient truth-and-justice seeker who uses soft-spoken, calm logical reasoning; balanced, decent, courageous, well-spoken and concerned; considered a do-gooder (who is just wasting others' time) by some of the prejudiced jurors 3." He is the first of the entire group to say the teenage boy is 'not guilty' and tries to, even if it's only doubts, to convince the others in pleading not guilty, or atleast telling them how he feels regarding the evidence; it seems rather confusing, as if the evidence is not clear. He votes 'not guilty' saying, "I don't know, I think we should think about it, it's someone's life we're talking about." A fallacy found in his arguments were when he is speaking with another judge who says the woman's story is verdict, "you don't believe the boy's story but the woman's you do, she is one of **//them//** isn't she?" This is a fallac of__ Attack on the Person__. He mentions as well another fallacy when he says, "you want to kill the boy because you're a sadist," this is the fallacy of__ Irrelevant Conclusion__. Fonda also rises to the point of giving a brief tension history the kid and his father have, "ever since he was five his father has beat him regularly," this is a fallac of__ Appeal to Pity. __Before reaching a final conclusion or decision, he is the first to think back and try to prove all the evidence was true- the one-of-a-kind knife, the old man who heard them arguing, and the lady wearing the eye glasses who says she "saw the boy killing his father." He feels that, in order to fully decide the boy is guilty, he muist believe all the facts, all the evidence, unlike the rest of the judges. His power of persuassion and the arise of his doubts makes each and every judge doubt about their decision, later on in the movie believing the boy is not guilty.__


 * Sources:**

__1= [|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film]) 2= [] 3= []


 * Janelle Andonie: **

**Juror #3** Juror #3, Lee J. Cobb, starts by pointing out that he has “no personal feelings” and just wants to wants to discuss the case with facts. He is too stubborn, since he is against Fonda’s opinion and suggestions during the whole film. His problem is that he lets his personal issues interfere with his vote. These issues can be abridged to “his son.” Cobb hasn’t seen his son in two years since the fight they had (his son hit him on the jaw), which is why he is so close minded about the kid being innocent. To sustain his opinion that the kid is guilty, he commits numerous fallacies and weak arguments during all the film.

-**Attack on the Person:** “The kid's a dangerous killer, you could see it...He stabbed his own father, four inches into the chest. They proved it a dozen different ways in court, would you like me to list them for ya?” -**Appeal to Force**: “ Aah. When he was nine years old he ran away from a fight. I saw it; I was so embarrassed I almost threw up. I said, " I'm gonna make a man outa you if I have to break you in two tryin'".__ And I made a man out of him. When he was sixteen we had a fight. Hit me in the jaw - a big kid. Haven't seen him for two years. Kids... work your heart out...__ ” -**Hasty Generalization**: “ It's these kids - the way they are nowadays.” -**Irrelevant Conclusion:** “You can’t refute the facts.. the word is flat..”__ 1. Before: ** [|Juror #8] **: There's something else I'd like to talk about for a minute. I think we've proved that the old man couldn't have heard the boy say "I'm gonna kill you," but supposing... After: ** [|Juror #8] **: you personally want it, not because of the facts! You're a sadist! [//Three lunges wildly at Eight, who holds his ground. Several jurors hold Three back//] 2. When he’s trying to prove that the old man is positive, but then he says: “He’s an old man, he can’t be positive about anything!”
 * Some examples of the fallacies he makes are:
 * Some examples of the argument:
 * [|Juror #10] **: You didn't prove it at all. What're you talking about?
 * [|Juror #8] **: But supposing he really did hear it. This phrase, how many times have all of us used it? Probably thousands. "I could kill you for that, darling." "Junior, you do that once more and I'm gonna kill you." "Get in there, Rocky, and kill him!" We say it every day. That doesn't mean we're going to kill anyone.
 * [|Juror #3] **: Wait a minute. What are you trying to give us here? The phrase was "I'm gonna kill you." The kid yelled it at the top of his lungs! Don't tell me he didn't mean it. Anybody says a thing like that the way he said it, they mean it.
 * [|Juror #3] **: I'll kill him! I'LL KILL HIM!
 * [|Juror #8] **: You don't *really* mean you'll kill me, do you?

**Juror #8** Juror #8, which is Henry Fonda, is the only one who thinks that the kid isn’t guilty from the start. Eventually, he persuades and convinces the other jurors to believe likewise by presenting strong and reasonable arguments which contradict or challenge the statements testified in the court room.

-**Appeal to Pity**: “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, angry kid, and that's all he's ever been. And you know why, because he's been hit on the head by somebody once a day, every day. He's had a pretty miserable eighteen years. I just think we owe him a few words, that's all.” 1. Juror# 8: Supposing they're wrong...Could they be wrong?...They're only people. People make mistakes. Could they be wrong? 2. He proved that the kids emotional stress made him not remember the movie he watched. 3. Helped prove that the woman wore glasses. 4. Proved that the old man couldn’t have moved so fast. 5. He also disproved the “one-of-a-kind” thought of the knife.
 * Fallacies:
 * Arguments:
 * 12: Well no, I don't think so.
 * 8: You know so.
 * 12: Oh come on, nobody can know a thing like that. This isn't an exact science.
 * 8: That's right, it isn't.

Sources: 1. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/quotes 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)  3.http://www.jwlidz.us/12.html

=EVA HERNANDEZ=
 * JUROR # 2 || JUROR 8 FONDA ||
 * - Struggles to put his opinions into words: "I just think he's guilty. I thought it was obvious from the word 'go.' I mean, nobody proved otherwise."

- Juror # 2 and # 6 change their votes to not guilty after listening to Fonda. They are accused by the others of mixing up when thinking too much. They decided to change their vote after recreating the scene of the boy running after killing his father. Demonstrating he is not guilty. - Juror # 2 asks about the stab and its downward angle. He believes the angle is near impossible to be from the boy because he is smaller than his father. Therefore, he believes is too difficult for him to accomplish it. - "That's a very awkward thing to stab down into the chest of someone who is more than half a foot taller than you are." || -Admits that he doesn't believe the boy's story, but he feels that the accused should be given a fair trial. - “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.” Appeal to Pity

-Reminds the bank teller that "the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't even have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution."

-  Disputes # 10's trust in the woman's testimony: "How come you believed the woman's story? She's one of //them//, too, isn't she?" - Points out that ever since the boy was five years old, his father beat him up regularly.- Appeal to pity. -“Supposing they're wrong...Could they be wrong?...They're only people. People make mistakes. Could they be wrong?”- Begging the Question -Pulls out a knife identical to the knife of the evidence, from which the boy is been accused. Jurors believe the knife is unique so the boy must be guilty. - Jurors vote on a secret vote in order to see if some of them have changed their mind. - He is volunteered to be the victim in a demonstration, since he is already standing up. Juror # 3 stands face to face with # 8, crouches down until he is shorter, and then raises the knife to strike downward into his chest - while the others nervously react. ||


 * SOURCES**__
 * []
 * []
 * []

**David Jeong**

Having grown up in a poor urban Jewish, he is naive and reserved. His lack of personality results in others' disrespect towards him. He, evoking his hard experience from youth, successfully disproves the theory that the kid, who was short, could stab his father who was half foot taller than him, the knife penetrating through his chest from upwards. He was one of the first ones to change the mind, convinced by Fonda's claims, but his participation in the discussion is poor; he even skipped the first discussion by saying he would pass. Being a reserved man, he rarely spoke up.
 * Juror #5 (Jack Klugman) **

Fallacies: "you can't talk to me like that. Who do you think you are?" (appeal to force) "don't you ever sweat? It's hot, everyone is sweating." (hasty generalization) "I know how to use a switch blade, I come from a town of switchblades." (appeal to authority) Henry Fonda was the only one to say that the kid was not guilty. He, despite all the contradictions from the other jurors, stays firm and states his opinion thoroughly, eventually succeeding in convincing others. He uses very persuasive argument which is logical and valid. Not on the kid's side for any specific emotion towards him, he believes that their is too few evidence to make a categorical conclusion. He and the other jurors go through the evidence one by one, which are disproved by Fonda with valid arguments. At the end, he succeeds in convincing every other jury and prevents unjust penalty for the kid.
 * Juror #8 (Henry Fonda)**

Fallacies: "He is just 18, he couldn't have possibly done such thing." (Begging the question) "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 year and a half in an orphanage when his father was serving a jail term for forgery. That's not a very happy beginning." (Appeal to pity)// "you personally want it, not because of the facts! you are a sadist!" (Attack on the person)

RUTH CASTILLO //

**JUROR #5 (JACK KLUGMAN)** Juror 5 feels pity for the boy because he sympathizes with his situation. They both come from the "slums" and he feels people like them are stereotyped as criminals and ignorants and usually have to face unjust accusations. At the beggining, he believes the boy is guilty, but then, after Fonda's first speech, he changes his mind and is the only one to vote not guilty. He seldom speaks, but he made an interesting point when saying that the kid couldn't have stabbed his father. He knew about switch blades, being raised in the slums, and pointed out that it is used going down-up, not up-down as the others suggested. Another interesting point he made was that the lady, the only eye witness, rubbed her nose constantly during the trial. Then they start the discussion about how the lady might not have seen correctly. He again states that she was 60 feet away from the boy, and he says again the boy is not guilty.

Appeal to authority: "I know how to use a switch blade, I come from a town of switch blades." Hasty generalization: "Don't you ever sweat? It's hot, everyone is sweating."
 * __Fallacies:__**

Fonda is the only one who believes the boy is not guilty. He is the only really smart one who sees the lack of evidence in the first place. He starts with an argument of how people can be wrong and provides many good arguments to why the boy might not have killed his father. Every juror believes the boy is guilty, but as Fonda does more talking, they slowly start changing their mind. The other jurors who are against him try to disprove his arguments, but Fonda's arguments fire back being valid. After many hours, and many discussions, they all vote not guilty. Fonda proves that it can take only one man to change the minds of many men.
 * JUROR #8 (HENRY FONDA)**

Hasty generalization: "How come you believed the woman's story, she is one of them, too, isn't she? Appeal to Pity: "Look, the kid's been kicked around all 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." Begging the Question: "Supposing they're wrong, could they be wrong? People make mistakes. Could they be wrong?
 * __Fallacies:__**

Sources: -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/ -http://www.filmsite.org/twelve.html -http://www.allmovie.com/work/12-angry-men-51289