12 Angry Men - 7
Hum115
12 Angry Men
The character in this movie that was the most effective critical thinker was juror 8(Henry Fonda). The types of characteristics that Fonda, exemplify is provisionalism, creativity, and critical thinking. By doing this he is uncover new ways of interpreting evidence, turns to certainty and shortsightedness when arriving at conclusions. For example, Fonda commented on how the boy had been slapped around all his life and was treated poorly. This kind of thinking leads to more external attributions—it was the way the boy was treated in life, not something inherent about the boy or his character. Next Fonda asks the jurors to consider the larger picture: the defendant's background, the witnesses' credibility, and the defending attorney's motives. He then shakes up the room by presenting a knife identical to the murder weapon--a weapon that the jurors were certain was unique. At this point, he has them wavering about reasonable doubt. Fonda was clearly self-confident. He had complete conviction in what he was doing and saying which instilled confidence in other members of the jury who were leaning in that direction a guilty verdict.
The character that is the least effective critical thinker is juror 3 (Lee J. Cobb). Cobb made more internal attributions for the boy’s behavior. He agreed with the slum kid idea, but also focused on the notion that kids today don’t have any respect or sense of morality. He is basing this decision on his own life situation because of his poor relationship with his son. Cobb categorizes the defendant as a rebellious kid and wants to persecute him.
Another example is when Henry Fonda insulted Lee Cobb by calling him a sadist and that due to his own beliefs. Cobb got mad and said: “I’m gonna kill ya.” Thus, when Cobb said it, it was just the situation that provoked this expression, but when the boy said it, it was an indication of his murderous rage. So this is an example of Cobb is view as bias. The other jurors are
12 Angry Men
The character in this movie that was the most effective critical thinker was juror 8(Henry Fonda). The types of characteristics that Fonda, exemplify is provisionalism, creativity, and critical thinking. By doing this he is uncover new ways of interpreting evidence, turns to certainty and shortsightedness when arriving at conclusions. For example, Fonda commented on how the boy had been slapped around all his life and was treated poorly. This kind of thinking leads to more external attributions—it was the way the boy was treated in life, not something inherent about the boy or his character. Next Fonda asks the jurors to consider the larger picture: the defendant's background, the witnesses' credibility, and the defending attorney's motives. He then shakes up the room by presenting a knife identical to the murder weapon--a weapon that the jurors were certain was unique. At this point, he has them wavering about reasonable doubt. Fonda was clearly self-confident. He had complete conviction in what he was doing and saying which instilled confidence in other members of the jury who were leaning in that direction a guilty verdict.
The character that is the least effective critical thinker is juror 3 (Lee J. Cobb). Cobb made more internal attributions for the boy’s behavior. He agreed with the slum kid idea, but also focused on the notion that kids today don’t have any respect or sense of morality. He is basing this decision on his own life situation because of his poor relationship with his son. Cobb categorizes the defendant as a rebellious kid and wants to persecute him.
Another example is when Henry Fonda insulted Lee Cobb by calling him a sadist and that due to his own beliefs. Cobb got mad and said: “I’m gonna kill ya.” Thus, when Cobb said it, it was just the situation that provoked this expression, but when the boy said it, it was an indication of his murderous rage. So this is an example of Cobb is view as bias. The other jurors are