Theory of Knowledge - 12 Angry Men
Some Background:
In England before the 15th century, juries were chosen among people who actually knew
something about the customs of the people and the locale in question. The modern jury
dates from the 15th century when English Common law judges began to instruct juries
on the law and restrict them to finding the facts from the evidence presented at the trial.
Under the U.S. Constitution, a person is entitled to a jury of his peers. This doesn't mean
that the jurors must come from the same racial, ethnic or cultural background as the
defendant but rather that no particular race or ethnic background can be excluded from
the jury selection process. The discussion the men are having about how to treat the
youth of the slums is a perennial debate in American Society.
When a jury begins to analyze the facts of a case, the application of twelve minds to a
set of circumstances is an amazing and awesome process. Facts which attorneys who
have often lived with a case for years have missed will be brought out by the jurors. An
example from the film is the jury's analysis of the marks made on the nose of the
eyewitness by her glasses. Jurors often find that their original positions are changed by
the discussion during deliberations. The film is true to life. On rare occasions, a position
that was held by only one dissenting juror has eventually been adopted by the rest of the
jury, as occurs in this movie.
Some key words and phrases:
"burden of proof,",
"due process of law",
"presumption of innocence",
"circumstantial evidence",
"beyond a reasonable doubt".
1
Questions arising from the movie:
 How do the various jurors justify their beliefs that the defendant is guilty?
 What ‘ways of knowing’ are implicit in these justifications?
 Did you spot any fallacious reasoning in some of their arguments?
(fallacies: ad hominem, sweeping generalisation, post hoc etc.)
 What kinds of prejudices (literally ‘prejudgments’) did some of the jurors
have?
 Below are some of lines from the film. Come up with ways to refute some of
the assumptions that underlie these statements. Imagine, for example,
that you are a lawyer for the defence.
“Nobody proved otherwise.”
“Somebody saw him do it!”
“I just wanna talk about facts.”
”You can’t refute facts.”
“You don’t believe the boy’s story, how can you believe the
woman’s?”
“Look at his record...”
“It’s these kids ... the way they are nowadays.”
“Slums are breeding grounds for criminals.”
“Somebody saw the kid stab his father, what else do we need?”
“The boy looks guilty.”
2
Justice
What is "due process of law"? Where does the phrase come from? What does
this film tell us about the importance of due process? Why does "due process of
law" require that before a person can be convicted, every member of a jury vote
for conviction?
Why does "due process of law" require that the prosecution prove guilt "beyond a
reasonable doubt"? Name some important elements of "due process of law".
[requirement that the prosecution present proof beyond a reasonable doubt;
requirement that all jurors agree on conviction; presumption of innocence, right to
confront your accuser, right not to testify against yourself, right to a jury of your
peers, right to an attorney] Explain why each is important to the "due process of
law". Pick a juror, describe the way he made up his mind at first, and tell us
whether this is a proper way for a juror to make up his mind. Did the dissenting
juror believe that the defendant was probably guilty or did he think the man was
innocent? What is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"? Do you think that the
dissenting juror planned all along to try to convince the others? What were his
methods of persuasion? Do you think that the jurors thought that the boy
probably had killed his father? Should they have voted to convict if they had that
belief?
Fairness
Play by the rules; Be open-minded; listen to others; Don’t blame others
carelessly What is another term for "due process of law?"
Respect
One of the jurors originally felt that the boy was guilty because of the
neighborhood that he had grown up in. Was this a valid argument? How do the
events recounted in this film show the flaw in judging a person by his
neighborhood or class?
Citzenship
What would have happened to the boy had the dissenting juror not cared enough
to sit on the jury or to attempt to persuade the other jurors?
3
The Twelve Jurors:
A summary of the anonymous characters helps to flesh out their characters and backgrounds. The order
in which each eventually decides to vote "not guilty" is given in brackets:
Juror #1 (The Foreman): (Martin Balsam) A high-school assistant head coach, doggedly concerned
to keep the proceedings formal and maintain authority; easily frustrated and sensitive when someone
objects to his control; inadequate for the job as foreman, not a natural leader and over-shadowed by Juror
# 8's natural leadership [9]
•
Juror #2: (John Fiedler) A wimpy, balding bank clerk/teller, easily persuaded, meek, hesitant, goes
along with the majority, eagerly offers cough drops to other men during tense times of argument; better
memory than # 4 about film title [5]
•
Juror #3: (Lee J. Cobb) Runs a messenger service (the "Beck and Call" Company), a bullying, rude
and husky man, extremely opinionated and biased, completely intolerant, forceful and loud-mouthed,
temperamental and vengeful; estrangement from his own teenaged son causes him to be hateful and
hostile toward all young people (and the defendant); arrogant, quick-angered, quick-to-convict, and
defiant until the very end [12]
•
Juror #4: (E. G. Marshall) Well-educated, smug and conceited, well-dressed stockbroker,
presumably wealthy; studious, methodical, possesses an incredible recall and grasp of the facts of the case;
common-sensical, dispassionate, cool-headed and rational, yet stuffy and prim; often displays a stern glare;
treats the case like a puzzle to be deductively solved rather than as a case that may send the defendant to
death; claims that he never sweats [10 - tie]
•
Juror #5: (Jack Klugman) Naive, insecure, frightened, reserved; has a slum-dwelling upbringing
that the case resurrects in his mind; a guilty vote would distance him from his past; nicknamed
"Baltimore" by Juror # 7 because of his support of the Orioles; he may be Hispanic but this is only
speculation [3]
•
Juror #6: (Edward Binns) A typical "working man," dull-witted, experiences difficulty in making
up his own mind, a follower; probably a manual laborer or painter; respectful of older juror and willing to
back up his words with fists [6]
•
Juror #7: (Jack Warden) Clownish, impatient salesman (of marmalade the previous year), a flashy
dresser, gum-chewing, obsessed baseball fan who wants to leave as soon as possible to attend evening
game; throws wadded up paper balls at the fan; uses baseball metaphors and references throughout all his
statements (he tells the foreman to "stay in there and pitch"); lacks complete human concern for the
defendant and for the immigrant juror; extroverted; keeps up amusing banter and even impersonates
James Cagney at one point; votes with the majority [7]
•
Juror #8: (Henry Fonda) An architect, instigates a thoughtful reconsideration of the case against
the accused; symbolically clad in white; a liberal-minded, patient truth-and-justice seeker who uses softspoken, calm logical reasoning; balanced, decent, courageous, well-spoken and concerned; considered a
do-gooder (who is just wasting others' time) by some of the prejudiced jurors; named Davis [1]
•
Juror #9: (Joseph Sweeney) Eldest man in group, white-haired, thin, retiring and resigned to death
but has a resurgence of life during deliberations; soft-spoken but perceptive, fair-minded; named
McCardle [2]
•
Juror #10: (Ed Begley) A garage owner, who simmers with anger, bitterness, racist bigotry; nasty,
repellent, intolerant, reactionary and accusative; segregates the world into 'us' and 'them'; needs the
support of others to reinforce his manic rants [10 - tie]
•
Juror #11: (George Voskovec) A watchmaker, speaks with a heavy accent, of German-European
descent, a recent refugee and immigrant; expresses reverence and respect for American democracy, its
system of justice, and the infallibility of the Law [4]
•
Juror #12: (Robert Webber) Well-dressed, smooth-talking business ad man with thick black
glasses; doodles cereal box slogan and packaging ideas for "Rice Pops"; superficial, easily-swayed, and
easy- going; vacillating, lacks deep convictions or belief system; uses advertising talk at one point: "run this
idea up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes it" [8]
•
4