The Jury Who Had To Use Thinking SkillsIn Twelve Angry Men, a young man is on trial for stabbing and killing his father. Themovie focuses on twelve randomly selected citizens who are assigned the duty ofdetermining the fate of this 19 year old man. The jury is supposed to examine certainfacts and determine the truth based solely on the evidence presented to them in court. It isassumed that the jurors will judge fairly and without personal bias. Basically, the jurorsneed to use critical thinking during this trial to figure out what evidence is factual andwhat evidence is false. Throughout the film, some jurors were better at critical thinkingthan others, some had obstacles to overcome bef ...view middle of the document...
The knives were identical and Fonda's characterexplains that he bought it in the same neighborhood. The second piece of evidence juror 8found reasonable doubt in was the old man's testimony. The old claims he heard thekiller yell 'I' m gonna kill you', a second later he heard the father's body fall and he sawthe boy running out of the house fifteen seconds after. Juror 8 decided to reenact thescene, paying attention to detail my dragging his foot like the old man, as well as,measuring the distance so that it was accurate. Fonda's character proved the old man'sstory was false because it took thirty-one seconds. Juror 8 payed attention to details,analyzed every detail, put aside his biases, and opened the eyes of the other jurors, this iswhy he was a great critical thinker.Although there were some good critical thinkers in Twelve Angry Men, there were afew jurors who just couldn't see outside the box until it was almost too late. Juror 10seemed to be the most close minded of all his peers, resulting in bad critical thinking.There were instances where this character stereotyped the defendant racially by saying"those people","them", "they are born liars" and "they do not value human life". Juror 10also referred to calling the boy ignorant and a slob. This juror not only treated thedefendant poorly, but his behavior towards his companions was ignorant. Juror 10 wassarcastic, insensitive, lacking morals, holding grudges, and a loud mouth. For instance,juror 10 sarcastically says "you're a smart fellow aren't you?" to juror 8 in response to apiece of evidence that had been shredded. All of these characteristics are ones that cloudthe mind and do not allow common sense or critical thinking to come into play.There were three individuals that held so much grudhe, anger and aggression that itprevented them from thinking critically. One of these peers was juror 3. He claimed thatthe defendant was certainly guilty and his reasons for thinking this was completelyprejudice. He brought thoughts of anger, resentment and revenge into the jury because hisown son left him. For this he thinks and blames all young folks. Another jury who was abad critical thinker is number 2. He tends to follow the crowd and feels like its an openand closed case. He doesn't want to see the facts as they are nor does he want to listen towhat anyone says. The last juror who bad at thinking critically was 6. Though...
