Jul 21, 2017 Research papers

Consider the jurors who share a faith this most relevant fallacy, as well as those who share a lack of faith in it. What does each juror say? How does each juror act and or react?

This paper concentrates on the primary theme of Consider the jurors who share a faith this most relevant fallacy, as well as those who share a lack of faith in it. What does each juror say? How does each juror act and or react? in which you have to explain and evaluate its intricate aspects in detail. In addition to this, this paper has been reviewed and purchased by most of the students hence; it has been rated 4.8 points on the scale of 5 points. Besides, the price of this paper starts from £ 40. For more details and full access to the paper, please refer to the site.

Twelve Angry Men Essay

INSTRUCTIONS:

English 103 Prompt from the Instructor: Watch the 1957 Film "12 Angry Men"... it`s available on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzPll63y2b0 In a double-spaced, thesis-driven essay of at least five typed pages, respond to only one of the following two choices: Choice 1: Argue what you think is the most relevant fallacy in the film: be sure and explain why. Because you are arguing that this is the most most relevant fallacy (fallacy is defined: fault in logic or reasoning) in the 12 Angry Men Film. Don`t just identify the most relevant fallacy but show how this most relevant fallacy influences the discussions and the juror or juror who use it. Consider the jurors who share a faith this most relevant fallacy, as well as those who share a lack of faith in it. What does each juror say? How does each juror act and or react? Some jurors may even have a hidden motive behind their feelings on the matter. Be aware of how the fallacy is presented, how others characters respond to the fallacy, and how the direction of the plot is changed (or not changed) based on this fallacy. Remember, you are analyzing a fallacy, which means one, so stay focused on only one fallacy in the film. Choice 2: How does Davis (Juror #8) establish and maintain his argument? Consider how Davis presents himself in contrast to the others; consider a particular quality or trait he has that enables him to accomplish the unanimous "not guilty" verdict. Look at how he brings others to his side of the argument, how he rebuts or debates issues with those who disagree with him, and how even deals with the characters of other men and their real motivations behind their initial decision. What does he say and or do? What do the other men say or do in response? Be aware of how Davis presents his argument, how he sustains it, and how he manages to bring others to his point of view. Format Guidelines for your essay: At least 5 Pages minimum, Double Spaced, Times New Roman Font, 1 inch margins all Notes from me the Student: After watching the film I took the following notes on each of the 12 jurors. Juror 1). He is an assistant coach. Tries to establish an order on how to proceed on jury deliberations. Juror 2). He is shy, quiet because it`s his first time in a jury. He works at a Bank. Juror 3). He is angry, emotional and sentimental. Has a strain relationship with his son who he hasn`t seen in 2 years since they fought. He allows his emotional to get the best of him at many parts of the film. Juror 4). He is intelligent and educated. He is the juror who wears glasses that leave a mark on his nose. He is the only juror who doesn`t sweat. His job is a broker. Juror 5). This juror could relate to the young defendant on trial because he grew up in a similar background in the poor slums. Juror 6). His occupation is a painter. Defends and stands up Juror 9 with respect when others jurors try to bully Juror 9 because he is the oldest juror in the room. Juror 7). He is selfish. He is eager to finish the jury deliberation as soon as possible so he can watch a baseball game. Constantly makes jokes. Juror 8). His name is Davis. He is an architect. He is the 1st juror to vote not guilty. Davis`s behavior is that he likes to put things in order. He is impartial, calm, sympathetic, and responsible. Davis looks at all angles before making a decision. Davis takes the case very seriously and is very considerate of others and overall very respectful. Davis takes time to discuss the case like for example. The evidence of the knife. He discusses the testimony of the old man who murder. Davis demonstartes the time limit of the old man walking to the door and also questions the woman who supposedly saw the defendant commit the murder. Davis also looks at the circumstances of the boys alibi and the noise factor of the train. Juror 9). His name is McCardle. The oldest juror in the room. He is wise and is the first person to change his vote from guilty to not guilty. McCardle is the person who brought up the issue of the eye glasses that leave a mark on Juror 4 nose which questions the testimony of the woman who supposedly saw the defendant commit the murder which causes reasonable doubt. Juror 10). He is racist. Goes on a racist rant not relevant to the case. He is the juror who tends to wipe his nose frequently with a wipe because he has a summer cold. Juror 11). His occupation is a watchmaker. He is polite. Has an accent because he was an immigrant. Confronts Juror 7 when Juror 7 changes his vote from guilty for not guilty without actual reasoning. Juror 12). His occupation is an advertisement executive. Tends to flip flop between deciding on guilty, not guilty, guilty and finally not guilty.

CONTENT:
Your NameProfessor’s NameCourse NumberSeptember 20, 2014Choice 2:How does Davis (Juror #8) establish and maintain hisArgument?The movie “12 Angry Men” is a riveting, insightful and engrossing examination of a court case conducted by twelve totally different jurors. The group comprises of middle aged, white and middle-class men, awkwardly brought together to premeditate and examine facts to make a judgment in an ostensibly open-and-shut murder trial case. They enter the jury room to offer their civic duty which would serve as verdict for the destitute minority defendant with a criminal record to his name; his life is in their hands. The movie’s elementary thought is that the terrifying legal ukase, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ should not be considered as just a flat axiom carelessly coined by the lawmakers. The defendant involved in this case is a tough teenage brought up in a dysfunctional home. Charged with having stabbed his vicious father, an erstwhile convict he has his life hanging in a balance. All but one of the jurors deems the case as an open-and-shut case. Davis (Juror 8) gives his most potent portrayal in years as the unbiased juror whose commonsensical reckoning implants facts and doubts into the minds of his comrades so that in the end they change their verdict to not guilty- Thesis The film systematically denounces and exposes the pitfalls entwined in the jury system. As the film commences it is clear that the adolescent defendant is on trial together with the jury and the whole of the American judicial system with its professed sense of infallibility and lack of prejudice. The courtroom drama is in a crash course with those tenets embed in the U.S constitution that promise the defendants a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. The movie is interwoven with stark simplicity; it takes places in a crowded jury room based in New York during the ‘hottest day of the year.’ Here the fate of a young ethnic man is in the hands of twelve white men, they have the burden to proof beyond reasonable guilt that the defendant is guilty or not. The twelve angry men are barely compatible, in this case they are mandated to decide whether the uneducated, teenage Puerto Rican, boy would be executed through the electric chair for allegedly killing his father or not. They are actually locked into a tiny, claustrophobic rectangular jury room on an airless hot summer day, whether they like or not they must come up with an undisputed decision stating whether the boy is guilty or not guilty. The persuasive, confrontational film investigates the 12 men’s innate personal prejudices, perceptual unfairness and weaknesses, apathy, resentment, personalities, defective judgments and their inner fears that could taint their decision making. In a clever way, the movie parodies the system that entrusts the life of people into the hands of potentially imperfect assemblage that often than not leads miscarriage...

0% Plagiarism Guaranteed & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions


International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom,
E16 2DQ

UK Registered Company # 11483120


100% Pass Guarantee

Order Now

STILL NOT CONVINCED?

We've produced some samples of what you can expect from our Academic Writing Service - these are created by our writers to show you the kind of high-quality work you'll receive. Take a look for yourself!

View Our Samples

corona virus stop
FLAT 25% OFF ON EVERY ORDER.Use "FLAT25" as your promo code during checkout