12 Angry Men †Critical Thinkers Essay

In cardinal smouldering Men, a young man is on run for stabbing and killing his catch. The movie focuses on twelve at random selected citizens who are assigned the duty of determining the fate of this 19 division grey-haired man. The jury is supposed to examine certain facts and determine the virtue based solely on the evidence presented to them in court. It is assumed that the jury cleaning womans entrust judge fairly and without per passwordal bias. Basically, the jurymans need to use life-sustaining idea during this trial to radiation diagram out what evidence is factual and what evidence is false. end-to-end the film, some jurywomans were better at comminuted mentation than others, some had parapets to curb forward they could use good critical thinking skills, and yet others became critical thinkers at different points during the movie. Critical thinking compete a cite role in Twelve Angry Men. In order to be able to think outside the box, one must possess the baron to think unbiaslly, non bring personal issues into play, not be panic-struck to put the ideas and precariousnesss on the table, and to be level headed.The juror who possessed these skills the ruff and applied them better than his eleven other companions was juror number 8, played by Henry Fonda. At the beginning of the movie, juror 8 was the entirely one to vote not guilty on the first vote. Fondas section plainly stated Its not easy for me to try my hand and send a boy to die without talking some it first. This shows that he wanted to examine all the evidence and facts before coming to his decision. As the movie went on, juror 8 kept make up questions like could it be possible and could he be wrong to prompt others that about reasonable doubt. Then Fondas role helped find holes in two key slicings of evidence, one being the knife used in the murder. The switchblade knife was supposed to one of a kind, notwithstanding juror 8 takes a knife out of his pocket a nd jams it into the table near to the knife that was used in the murder. The knives were identical and Fondas character explains that he bought it in the same neighborhood. The second piece of evidence juror 8 found reasonable doubt in was the old mans testimony. The old claims he heard the killer yell I m gonna kill you, a second later he heard the fathers body fall and he saw the boy rivulet out of the house fifteen seconds subsequently. Juror 8 decided to act out the scene, paying attention to detail my dragging his foot like the old man, as well as, measuring the distance so that it was accurate.Fondas character proved the old mans story was false because it took cardinal seconds. Juror 8 payed attention to details, analyzed every detail, put excursion his biases, and out-of-doorsed the eyes of the other jurors, this is why he was a keen critical thinker. Although there were some good critical thinkers in Twelve Angry Men, there were a few jurors who scarcely couldnt ma rk outside the box until it was almost too late. Juror 10 bring downmed to be the most close minded of all his peers, resulting in bad critical thinking. There were instances where this character stereotyped the defendant racially by maxim those people,them, they are born liars and they do not value pitying life. Juror 10 also referred to calling the boy unspiritual and a slob. This juror not only treated the defendant poorly, but his behavior towards his companions was ignorant. Juror 10 was sarcastic, insensitive, lacking morals, holding grudges, and a crummy mouth. For instance, juror 10 sarcastically says youre a smart checkmate arent you? to juror 8 in response to a piece of evidence that had been shredded. All of these characteristics are ones that cloud the mind and do not allow common sense or critical thinking to arrange into play. There were three individuals that held so much grudhe, anger and aggression that it prevented them from thinking critically.One of these peers was juror 3. He claimed that the defendant was certainly guilty and his reasons for thinking this was completely prejudice. He brought apprehensions of anger, resentment and revenge into the jury because his own son left him. For this he thinks and blames all young folks. Another jury who was a bad critical thinker is number 2. He tends to follow the group and feels like its an open and closed case. He doesnt want to see the facts as they are nor does he want to listen to what anyone says. The last juror who bad at thinking critically was 6. Though he gave juror 8 a chance, the reason was because he was too narrow headed to figure out the evidence wase. He couldnt connect any of the dots nor did he speak up very much in the discussion. Twelve Angry Men had good examples of how the average person uses critical thinking, which is while the sour of conversion is occurring? For some reason the light bulb dings on after we listen to others explain their thoughts. Jurors 9, 11 an d 7 were like most of us. During the trial juror 9 kept suffrage guilty until Fondas character started talking about the old mans character and the womans eyesight.He voted not guilty after he thought about the old mans character being alone, neer had recognition in life for anything, and he wanted some so the old man lied. Juror 9 had to overcome his own cognizance of himself being old and not really needed for much in order to be a critical thinker and realize his opinions sum up too. Like juror 9, juror 7 had to overcome his preoccupation of breathing out to a Yankees game. Throughout the film, he kept voting guilty and then after he heard jurors 8 and 10 talk about how the woman wore glasses and she didnt have them on when she saw the murder. When this happened, juror 7 realized that there was reasonable doubt in the case. This only happens after he voted not guilty just to get to the ball game and Fondas character asks him why, which then makes 7 pay attention and think. Ju ror 11 was an immigrant who was scared and easily swayed by his peers.He had the obstacle of trying to stand up for himself, understand his interpretive program counts and that his mind works just like others. Juror 11 conquered this obstacle when juror 8 was talking about the wound, he realized that the mortal taller would have had to been the killer. He also explained to the others that a switchblade is use in an upward motion. Once these characters got over their obstacles, their critical thinking skills helped open holes in the case. All in all, Twelve Angry Men was a broad learning tool to what critical thinking is and how to apply. This film taught me that you have to feeler decisions in a certain manner. I need to keep an open mind, be level-headed, express my opinions and not judge others. Thinking critically implies that originator power of yours and your peers is needed to get a better understanding of day-to-day life. Respecting others around you is key. In order to use critical thinking, one must know what it entails.