12 Angry Men Argument
Additionally, Mill’s other concept of the Open Market Place of Ideas comes into effect while analyzing the development of the jurors beliefs. The basis of this concept is that the truth will be revealed in the free release of ideas for the discernment of all, and this is exactly what occurred in 12 Angry Men. One man managed to convince the others one by one that the defendant was innocent, yet this would not have been possible if all of their ideas were not freely released. If the eighth juror were intimidated by the number of those who outnumbered him, ideas would not have been freely released, and perhaps the movie would have ended much differently. Nearly every juror contributed to the discussion in some way because each of their past
…show more content…
While he initially offers no real reason as to why he initially believes the defendant to be guilty other than his intuition, he quickly proves himself to be a reasonable juror who listens carefully to the facts in order to develop a stronger opinion. While he may be easily persuaded, he does listen to the evidence fairly. Growing up, I was taught I should stand up for myself and my beliefs when necessary, and when I noticed that this juror did not seem to have fully developed his own opinion at the beginning of the movie, I assumed he would be only a follower throughout the duration of the film. He did provide many interesting points, though, that contributed to the overall discussion and helped determine the innocence of the defendant. His desire to understand the truth changed my opinion of him. I also ranked the eleventh juror differently at the beginning and end of the movie. At the beginning, he seemed like someone who is extremely outspoken. Based on my experiences with people who always speak their thoughts and opinions aloud, I often automatically associate these people with being careless and overly aggressive because that is how those people have seemed to me as I have grown up them at my high school. However, the eleventh juror proved to be a fair juror who cared deeply about justness and the democratic process. Seeing his dedication to democracy and fairness changed my opinion about
While he initially offers no real reason as to why he initially believes the defendant to be guilty other than his intuition, he quickly proves himself to be a reasonable juror who listens carefully to the facts in order to develop a stronger opinion. While he may be easily persuaded, he does listen to the evidence fairly. Growing up, I was taught I should stand up for myself and my beliefs when necessary, and when I noticed that this juror did not seem to have fully developed his own opinion at the beginning of the movie, I assumed he would be only a follower throughout the duration of the film. He did provide many interesting points, though, that contributed to the overall discussion and helped determine the innocence of the defendant. His desire to understand the truth changed my opinion of him. I also ranked the eleventh juror differently at the beginning and end of the movie. At the beginning, he seemed like someone who is extremely outspoken. Based on my experiences with people who always speak their thoughts and opinions aloud, I often automatically associate these people with being careless and overly aggressive because that is how those people have seemed to me as I have grown up them at my high school. However, the eleventh juror proved to be a fair juror who cared deeply about justness and the democratic process. Seeing his dedication to democracy and fairness changed my opinion about