In today’s society, we like to be fair to everyone, but sometimes in life there seems to be an obvious answer to most problems and a lot of the time, this obvious answer is the wrong one. And a great example of this is exercised in the film, 12 Angry Men. In this film, they start out eleven men to one on the decision of whether to send an eighteen year old alleged murderer to the electric chair. Several jurors, primarily juror three struggle to side with the one juror on the side of the eighteen year old boy. The main antagonist against the boy was emotionally invested for biased reasons. Throughout the movie he is very stubborn and doesn’t dare to budge until the end of the film. Although Juror Three has a hidden reasoning to his stubbornness…show more content… This is non sequitur because Juror Five stood up for whoever it was at the time that he didn’t know changed their vote, and told Juror Three that he had no right to verbally attack the person who changed their vote on an anonymous vote, this did not mean that he is the one that changed his vote, because it actually ended up being Juror Nine. The second example by Juror Three would have to exercise oversimplification. He asserts that he is guilty for sure, no matter what the evidence is multiple times. It just isn’t that simple. The third example would have to be emotionally charged language because he is visualizing the boy “slipping right through their fingers”, and that would definitely make me re-think my decision for at least a second. The fourth example is another illustration of oversimplification. He offers a simple solution to a complex problem by exclaiming “You can't turn now. A guilty man's gonna be walking the streets. A murderer. He's got to die!” It is not that simple, you can not just kill a being because of your buried biased opinions. You also can’t call a man a murderer when you have no respectable evidence for the alleged
