ISC 210 Critical thinking
26 March 2015
Twelve Angry Men
The movie Twelve Angry men directed by Sidney Lumet is about following the closing arguments in a murder trial, the 12 members of the jury must deliberate, with a guilty verdict meaning death for the accused, an inner-city teen. As the dozen men try to reach a unanimous decision. While everyone believe the teen is guilty right away all expect one juror. Making so they have to look at all the evidence again to reach a verdict Relates to critical thinking and the things that we have talked about in class. Some of the critical thinking aspects that the movie relates to are biases and prejudices. Also in the movie there a lot of assumptions made about the young man that is accused of killing his father. Another connection between the movie and critical thinking is obstacles it tool the jurors to reach a decision.
The first connection between twelve angry men and critical thinking concepts is prejudice which is seen throughout the whole movie. When the jurors start talking about why or why they voted guilty or not guilty. One the juror state that the young teen is guilty just because of his race the juror say that those people are born liars that they can’t help it. Another example of prejudice is when a juror says that people that race living is the slums aren’t going to ever amount to anything. Without knowing until later in the movie one of the other Jurors mention how he grown up in slums and he never been in trouble as well as he owns his own business. This show that we shouldn’t judge or make assumptions about people based on the color of their skin or where they live. Using descriptive and value when looking at situations doesn’t help see the points that are trying to be made. Growing up we are always taught to not to assume because thing are not always what they seem.
Another connect between the movie and critical thinking concepts was the obstacles seen in the movie that eventually lead to a rational answer about whether or not the teen on trial was guilty or not. At first all the jurors didn’t want to take the time to look at the evidence or think about what about figure out if what the witness were saying added up. The first logical fallacy is the knife that was said to have been used by the teen to kill his father. When the jurors taking about the knife the juror who grown up in slums mention how that type of knife in that area was very common and how the way it was describe that boy stab his father. Wouldn’t have been done that way by someone who know how to use that type of knife. Another piece of the case that didn’t