Juror #1 originally thought that the boy was guilty. He was convinced that the evidence was concrete enough to convict the boy. He continued to think this until the jury voted the first time and saw that one of the jurors thought that the boy was innocent. Then throughout the movie, all of the jurors were slowly convinced that the boy was no guilty.
His first rhetoric appeal used was logos. He based his guilty verdict on the logical information provided in the court room. He continued to feel this way until later in the movie when he changed his appeal to pathos. The decision to change his mind was caused by the other jurors starting to change their minds.
As the one juror that felt the boy was innocent continued to try and convince the others that there was a chance that they could all be wrong, most all of the jurors were starting to see the possibility. Every time there was a new reason why he could be innocent, each juror had more to think about. Finally, the argument about the glasses swayed everyone just enough to withdrawal the guilty verdict and set the boy free.
My next claim is in regards to the “old man” juror. If it were not for him voting not guilty the second time, the boy would have been found guilty. He said the reason he voted that way was because of that one juror standing up to the other 11 jurors. He felt that everyone needed to hear all of the arguments because they were dealing with a man’s life. Thanks to that man, the boy was saved.
His original rhetoric appeal was also logos. He was basing his verdict choice on the logical information given in the court room. He was using all of the testimony and evidence to make what he thought was a logical decision. As the evening went on, I feel that his appeal was changed to ethos because of the juror that felt that he was innocent. He was impressed by this man because he was able to stand in front of the group and stick with his guilty verdict and not be swayed at all.
The “old man”...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document