Film Discussion

There just seems to be a general lack of relevant background information in this case. There are only the two witnesses, and even their stories have some doubt surrounding them. Furthermore, none of the jurors (as far as we know) have any significant background in dealing with these matters. It is revealed that De Begley has a prejudice that seems to be affecting his judgment in the case. During an exchange with one of the other jurors, Begley says of the Hispanic defendant, ‘You can’t trust anything they say. ” The other juror calls him out on his racism towards ‘they.

Obviously this prejudice would play a factor in Beagles trying of a defendant he inherently dislikes. Jack Warden exhibits egocentrics in that he just wants to wrap up the case so he can get to a baseball game. He is only thinking of his desires and valuing these over a child’s life. Many of the jury members impose peer pressure on Henry Fond, particularly Warden in trying to force him to change his vote. Whatever their reason may be for Fond to change his decision, this is as direct an example of peer pressure there can be. In line with peer pressure, conformism is a prevalent barrier to critical thinking.

All of the jurors must overcome the pressure to go with the group and make their own decision. Fond makes the case that accepting the knife found at the crime scene as the boys lost knife is an unwarranted assumption. It could just be a coincidence, a case he explicates by pulling out an identical blade of his own. Regarding the lack of relevant background information and assumptions, the jurors give in to rationalization. Ignoring any valid argument that is put forth, they justify their way around it to maintain a guilty verdict. This could also be called denial in that the jurors are ignoring good reasoning. 6.

Throughout the proceedings, people seem to jump on the bandwagon regarding their stance on the defendant. During the initial vote a few people raise their hands immediately claiming the boy’s guiltiness. All others but Fond then slowly raise their hands, clearly influenced by the opinions of their peers. Henry Fond exhibits an appeal to pity when he asks that the jury give the kid a chance, explaining that a matter of life or death for an 18-year-old boy deserves a discussion. John Fiddler’s reasoning behind voting guilty is an appeal to ignorance. All he can come up with is that the boy must be guilty because “no one proved otherwise. A few of the jurors make an appeal to authority when they cite the claims of witnesses in their argument against the boy. However, whether or not this argument is fallacious remains to be seen, as we do not yet know if the witnesses’ accounts are true. But regardless I would consider the arguments valid, because at the moment there is little reason not to believe them. I believe it is De Begley that commits a psychological ad hominid, making a personal attack on the boy by saying his slum background makes him a killer. This is somewhat of a generalization as well.