12 Angry Men & Majority/Minority Startegies - Summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Summary of the 1957 film 12 Angry Men and analysis of the majority / minority strategies utilised by the characters to convince each other of their theses....

Description

12 ANGRY MEN AND MAJORITY/MINORITY STRATEGIES

12 Angry Men Twelve jurors have to unanimously decide if an 18-year-old boy has actually killed his father or not. If he is guilty, he will be sentenced to the electric chair. At first, everyone but Juror #8 finds the kid guilty because they think there is enough evidence. However, he insists there is not. Throughout arduous discussions he ends up convincing the rest of the Jurors the boy is innocent, and the boy survives. Minority Strategies The strategies Juror #8 uses to convince the other Jurors that the boy is innocent are the following: 1. Stand confidently against the established. He dares to disagree openly, and speak his mind even though he knows his opinions might be - and will be - harshly criticized. 2. Initiate a conversation. In order to overcome the initial rejection, offer the opportunity to discuss the issue. That allows you to already include yourself as another viable option. 3. Arguments. Explain why you think what you think. i. Emotional. “C’mon, let’s not kill an 18-year-old without even having a conversation” ii. Ad Hominem (but actually real?). “You just think that because you are a racist” “You have a problem with your own son, and you want to punish this other random kid so you will feel better” iii. Logical “The testimony of that woman is not valid because she cannot see without glasses, and she didn’t have them on when the murder happened” “You cannot condemn a kid because he is a POC and thus not trustworthy yet take into consideration the testimony of a POC woman. Did she suddenly become trustworthy? Is it just her?” 4. Counterarguments. Explain why what the other thinks is wrong. - Includes Ad Hominem and Logical Arguments Majority Strategies The strategies used by the Jurors who find the kid guilty from the beginning are the following: 1. Ad populum. If most of us think the same, that must mean we are right. 2. Targeting. “C’mon dude! Do you really want to be the only naysayer here?” 3. Peer pressure. “Yeez, we wanna go outta this room! Just say the kid is guilty so we can take a break or something” Another Strategies The strategies that are not necessarily directed towards the majority (he is guilty) or minority (he is innocent) groups, but towards other MJ/MN ones or groups in general. 1. Stereotyping JUROR #10: “Listen to me. They're [POC] no good. There's not one of 'em who's any good.”

JUROR #4: “It's no secret that slums are breeding grounds for criminals [low class people].” 2. God’s point of view / My view = facts JUROR #3: “Here's what I think. And I have no personal feelings about this. I just wanna talk about facts.” JUROR #3: “Now these are the facts. You can't refute facts. The kid is guilty.” 3. I am empathetic / can see your view. JUROR #3: “I'm just as sentimental as the next fella. I know he's only 18.” 4. Ad hominem JUROR #3: “What are you talking about? I mean, we're all going crazy in here or something.” 5. Uncovering hypocrisy JUROR #8: “You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?” 12 Angry Men Introduction | Shmoop...