Evaluation of 12 Angry Men Using the Seven Step Me Essay Example For Students

Evaluation of 12 Angry Men Using the Seven Step Me Essay thod Rick Springer Psychology 2105/Friday 2-4:45 September 30, 2004 Step One: Critical Thinkers are Flexible o Initially, eleven of the twelve jurors were guilty of violating the first step in the critical thinking method because they immediately believed that the accused was guilty. They only considered the testimony of the prosecutions witnesses, they did not consider the facts presented to them. If they had carefully considered the facts presented to them they would have seen that the facts did not support the testimony. o Juror #7 (Jack Warden) states that You couldnt change my mind if you talked for a hundred years. This clearly is a violation of flexibility. Step Two: Critical Thinkers Identify Inherent Biases and Assumptions Assumptions o It was assumed that the prosecuting attorney did an expert job. o Most of the jury members initially assumed that the defendant had killed his father. o It is assumed that the defendant was a wild, angry kid because he had a horrible life. o It was assumed that the testimony of the old man that lived below the defendant and victim was concrete fact. o It was also assumed that the testimony of the woman across the street was conclusive. Bias o Obvious racial bias exhibited by Juror #10 when he makes racial slurs against the defendant. you know how these people lie! Its born in them they dont know what the truth is o Juror #3 shows inherent bias towards the young defendant based upon the poor relationship he has with his own son. Step Three: Critical Thinkers Maintain an Air of Skepticism o Eleven of the Jurors did not initially maintain an air of skepticism; they did not consider all of the evidence that had been presented to them. If they would have kept their minds open before walking into the jury room they may not have been so quick to initially decide the fate of the defendant. o Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) was the only man who maintained an air of skepticism and wanted to re-examine the evidence piece by piece. Step Four: Critical Thinkers Separate Facts from Opinions Fact o It is a fact that the defendants father was murdered. o It is a fact that the jury was made up of white males, not a jury of the defendants peers. Opinion o Juror # 4 (E.G. Marshall) offers an opinion when he states that slums are breeding grounds for criminals and that children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society. o Juror #10 (Ed Begley) feels that the defendant is not intelligent because he dont even speak good English. Step Five: Critical Thinkers Do Not Oversimplify o Juror three states that this case is open and shut against the young defendant. This seems to attempt to simplify a complex murder case. Step Six: Critical Thinkers Use the Logical Inference Process o Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) used this step when re-visiting the testimony of the witnesses. He questions whether or not the old man would have been able to hear anything as the L train was passing by. o Juror #9 (Joseph Sweeney) makes the logical inference that the female witness across the street wore glasses because she had marks on her nose. o Juror #4 (E.G. Marshall) deduces that it is logical to assume that no one wears eyeglasses to bed and so it was unlikely that she had time to put her glasses on to see the murder sixty feet away. Step Seven: Critical Thinkers Examine Available Evidence before Drawing Conclusions o Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) was successful in finally convincing the other eleven jurors to look at the testimony and evidence that was presented to them critically, and determine that the information presented to them was not a simple guilty verdict. In fact, he was able to convince the other jurors that reasonable doubt was present and the jury could not cast a guilty verdict if reasonable doubt is present. .