Prince Detrill Roger Rose
October 28, 2012
We humans live in a world were illogical fallacies run rampant. In 12 Angry Men the author illustrates everyday illogical fallacies people have in the setting of a court jury. Jurors: 3, 4, 7 and 10 have their own fallacies that are unique to them in the play; but can be found in common people in everyday people. In 12 Angry Men the illogical fallacy for Juror Number 3 is a general fallacy. This fallacy is the result of an emotional prejudice by juror 3 has as he compares the defendant with his own child. Juror 3 says in the play,
You’re right. It's the kids. The way they are—you know? They don't listen. I've
got a kid. When he was eight years old, he ran away from a fight. I saw him. I was
so ashamed, I told him right out, "I'm gonna make a man out of you or I'm gonna
bust you up into little pieces trying." When he was fifteen he hit me in the face.
He's big, you know. I haven't seen him in three years. Rotten kid! You work your
heart out.... All right, let's get on with it. (Reginald Rose 8) His emotional prejudice gets in the way of his critically thinking through the evidence because he has emotional conflict with his own son. He is grouping all teens together because of his altercation with his son, and Juror 3 is just punishing the young man on trial because he cannot come to turns with his own failings as a parent with his child. Towards the end of the play Juror 3 is all alone on the vote count; he “looks around at all of them for a long time. They sit silently, waiting for him to speak, and all of them despise him for his stubbornness. Then, suddenly, his face contorts as if he is about to cry, and he slams his fist down on the table” … (thundering) All right” (30). Juror Number 4 and 10 each has prejudices about slum dwellers....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document