Paul Lydio Anthony S.

Ariola (12-1262)
12 Angry Men:
“Defend your Honor”
“Prejudice is a burden that confuses the past, threatens the future and renders the present

inaccessible” – Maya Angelou. The play “12 Angry Men” (originally a movie but was

performed through a play) was about 12 jurors deciding whether a 19 year old boy who

lives in the slums is on trial for stabbing his father to death should be found guilty or not.

Due to time constraint and personal agenda, the jurors decided that the boy is founded

guilty except one – Juror 8. This vote started jurors to become angry and questioned Juror

8’s statements. A lot of arguments were shown but the writer of this paper managed to

identify only two. Below will be discus the two arguments that was found during the play.

On prejudices,

One argument that was presented during the hearing was that Juror 10 voted guilty

because of the boy’s life background. The 19 year old boy grew in the slums in which it

is an area of a city where poor people live and the buildings are in bad condition. In other

words, it is a very untidy place. Due to this, Juror 10 made an assumption that, due to the

environment he lives at, the boy is guilty due to his belief that most people who lives in

the slums are most likely to commit delinquencies. Ergo he made an implication that due

to the former, the 19 year old boy murdered his own father. However, the problem with

this argument will be discussed below.

One is that Juror 10’s argument was obviously biased in which he was prejudice.

It is biased in the sense that some people are better than others that usually results in

treating some people unfairly. He was favorable to his beliefs in which in this situation
justice is in question. The juror should not have been one-sided and should have been

fair by giving what is due – which is unbiased statements and more concepts or evidences

to prove his point.

Another, his argument lacked a lot of details in which he lacked information and

concepts. Juror 10 easily jumped to this conclusion without even considering other factors

like not everyone who lives in the slums commit crime or even people who lives in an

urban area may also do so. Moreover, this can be related to the statements discussed

above in which he lacked concepts, principles or theories that could have supported his

argument.

Juror 10 should have considered various sources first before deciding. He should

have been accurate and precise of his statements in which it must be free from extortions

or errors, must be correct, true but sometimes factual since not all true things are factual,

and must have sufficient details to prove his statement. Through this, his statements could

have been clear and unbiased in which in this case he is being fair to the accused.

On fallacies,

Another argument was when Juror 8 pleaded to have another vote via a secret

ballot. After the every vote counted there was another who voted “not guilty.” Juror 3

harbored resentment and began to deliberately accused Juror 5 for the former. He kept

on badmouthing and shouting at Juror 5 until Juror 9 admitted that he was the one who

voted “not guilty” due to the fact that also lived in the slums similar with the boy’s situation.

Through this situation, it is obvious that the main fallacy is ad hominem in which the

person is the main object and not the argument in which one deviates himself from the
argument per se. Moreover, there are two particular fallacies that were observed under

ad hominem. One is ad bacolom. This fallacy is about an argument that appeals to force

in which the person uses fear or intimidation to win an argument. In this scenario, this

fallacy can be seen as Juror 3 shouts or intimidates Juror 5 in which Juror 3 was forcing

Juror 5 to admit that he was the one who voted “not guilty” without considering Juror 5’s

side. Eventually, Juror 3 was stand corrected. Another fallacy is called poisoning the well.

This fallacy targets the person and deviates away from the argument per se in which a

person discredits his opponent for his chance to win the argument. In this scenario, the

fallacy is present when Juror 3 uses Juror 5’s background as a reason to why he voted

“not guilty” before even speaking. Through this, Juror 5 was discredited by Juror 3 in

which he attacked and accused Juror 5 through his personal life.

Juror 3 should not have used intimidation and used Juror 5’s personal background

as a way to win a particular argument since this would deviate from the argument per se.

Juror 3 should have stated facts that is relevant and significant to his statement to prove

his point. In this way, his argument could have been valid if had he not used coercion and

disgraceful statements that would destroy the person’s reputation.