CRITICAL THINKING IN THE FILM, 12 ANGRY MEN

Last updated: 3/19/2009

Juror #1 (Foreman; coach)

Juror #2 (Bank clerk; The voice of Piglet)

Juror #3 (Angry, “excitable” juror)

Juror #4 (Stock Broker)

Juror #5 (Grew up in the slums)

Juror #6 (The painter/worker)

Juror #7 (Guy with baseball tickets, usually wearing his hat)

Juror #8 (Architect; Henry Fonda, wearing white suit)

Juror #9 (The nice old man)

Juror #10 (Old man with head cold)

Juror #11 (Foreign accent watchmaker, suspenders)

Juror #12 (Advertising man)

The 12 jurors represent various characteristics of critical thinkers and of uncritical thinkers. Note the critical thinking strengths and weaknesses of each of the 12 jurors.

(notes on jurors 1-12: Dwayne H. Mulder)

Juror #1 (Foreman; coach): Ineffective leader, easily intimidated, insecure, more concerned about how he’s perceived than about the case (a kind of egocentrism). An uncritical thinker.

Juror #2 (Bank clerk; The voice of Piglet): Smart and interested in finding the truth, but weak, not courageous enough to stand up to the group. His weakness not only prevents him from speaking up, it also seems to keep him from thinking things through as well as he could. At the beginning, for example, he explains his vote of guilty by saying, “I don’t know, I just thought he was guilty.” He’s objective enough by the end of the film to be a critical thinker but not strong enough to put it into action, hence not an excellent critical thinker all things considered.

Juror #3 (Angry, “excitable” juror): Too emotional, makes the case too personal, blatantly contradicts himself repeatedly. This juror does not have the intellectual capacity or the self-control to be a critical thinker. His emotions are a problem for critical thinking not because they are emotions but because he has emotional problems. Unhealthy and unbalanced emotions cause problems. He gets himself caught in a number of logical inconsistencies. (E.g., “He was an old man. Half the time he was confused. How could he be positive about anything!” “I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” “What about all the other evidence? The knife. Everything.” #2-“You said we could throw out all the other evidence.”)

Juror #4 (Stock Broker): Despite the gross generalization about “kids from slum backgrounds,” he’s a very bright, analytical thinker – probably the best of the twelve at organizing and explaining all the evidence for the prosecution. However, he turns out not to be emotional enough; he’s detached and perhaps too analytical and unfeeling about “kids from slum backgrounds” and human behavior generally. He has the intellect to be a critical thinker but not the emotional engagement or feeling for other people to be a well-rounded critical thinker. Notice how he is moved to critical reflection on his initial judgment only when he is pushed to become emotionally, personally connected. One crucial moment comes when #8, the architect, pushes him personally to remember details of a film he saw a few nights earlier. I hope you noticed how this makes him sweat. This episode forced him to relate in a human, emotional way to what the defendant went through “under great emotional stress.” Another crucial moment for #4 comes when #9, the nice old man, connects #4 personally, through his experience of wearing glasses, to the female eyewitness to the murder. He gains “emotional intelligence” through these experiences.

Juror #5 (Grew up in the slums): Early on, he’s trying hard not to stick out, he wants to fit in with the group of mostly respectable men. Starts out quite vulnerable to the bandwagon effect, going along with the crowd. (Notice how timid he is among men he considers to be his social betters; his first comment in the deliberations is, “Can I pass?”) He develops confidence, however, as the deliberations proceed and becomes a fairly intelligent and strong critical thinker. His distinctive background adds a little diversity to the jury and ends up providing concrete, relevant, beneficial insight into how a switchblade knife would be used.

Juror #6 (The painter/worker): Sees himself as more of a practical, hands-on kind of guy than a great thinker. Perhaps he is too accepting of society’s stereotyping and pigeonholing of manual laborers. He’s respectful of others, moral, and somewhat curious about where the evidence and arguments might lead. There seems to be undeveloped potential in him to be a better, more independent critical thinker.

Juror #7 (Guy with baseball tickets, usually wears his hat): He is egocentric in the sense of being selfish, caring only about getting to his game and not about the life & death of the defendant. This makes him indifferent to others and wishy-washy – changing his vote for apparently superficial reasons.

Juror #8 (Wears a white suit; Architect; Henry Fonda): Excellent critical thinker, no significant critical thinking lapses or gaps – scores well on all aspects of critical thinking:

· IQ (analytical intelligence narrowly construed)

· EQ (emotional “intelligence,” or emotional awareness)

· He’s intuitive (he begins with nothing more than a “feeling” that something isn’t quite right in this apparently “open and shut” case)

· Concern/interest in the proceedings

· Curiosity

· Observation skills

· Logical skills

· Impartiality/lack of personal bias

· Willingness to question the obvious

· Patience/Taking his time/resistance to a rush to judgment

· Clear separation of possibility from probability (“Isn’t it just possible that the woman didn’t see the killer clearly?”)

· Clear understanding of “reasonable doubt”

· Resistance to groupthink/bandwagon/courage to stand alone

· He is not necessarily the best at each aspect taken individually:

o The old man next to him, for example, is better at EQ and observation skills.

o The stockbroker is probably better at IQ.

o The man with the foreign accent is probably better at explaining the structure of the jury system and how it is meant to promote impartiality.

o Further, his courage to stand up to the other 11 is not entirely a matter of inner strength. Much of it probably comes from the fact that he is a tall, white, professional male in 1950’s America. He can stand up to anyone else in the room because of his social position (in sharp contrast to #4, who is at first intimidated by the situation).

Juror #9 (The nice old man): Excellent critical thinker. He’s especially observant (both in the sense of having an eye for detail [“20/20”] and understanding human nature), empathetic (feeling for people), compassionate, and intuitive. For some reason, he does not spearhead the “not guilty” movement. Perhaps he is somewhat weak due to his age.

Juror #10 (Old man with head cold): A prejudiced bigot, guilty of rampant over-generalizations. There is some emotional interference in that he is generally bitter, cranky, and afraid of the “danger” that “those people” present. Among all the emotions, fear is the most consistently a trouble-maker for clear, critical thinking.

Juror #11 (Foreign accent; wears suspenders; watchmaker): Flexible, open-minded, questioning. His greatest critical thinking characteristic is his objectivity – not feeling any commitment to one “side” versus another. He understands that the design of the jury system is supposed to bring out that kind of impartiality. He has a willingness to follow the best arguments wherever they lead. Brings up the very important point that the defendant would not have wiped his fingerprints off the knife if he left in a panic and would not have left the knife there if he were not in a panic.

Juror #12 (Advertising man): He is egocentric in the sense of being self-absorbed. Wants to be the focus, talks about himself, only partly engaged in the deliberations of the jury. His self-absorption and lack of focus on the case explain his flip-flopping from guilty to not guilty to guilty and back to not guilty.

Critical thinking could be called slow thinking, in the sense that it works hard to resist any rush to judgment. Critical thinking takes its time, as #8 works hard to do at the beginning of deliberations.

The rush to judgment was encouraged by the bandwagon effect at the beginning. At the initial vote, #1, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 12 put their hands up quickly for “guilty.” #2 (bank clerk), #5 (from the slums), #6 (laborer), #9 (kindly old man), and #11 (foreign accent) looked around first and then put their hands up more slowly. This suggests the bandwagon effect, or peer pressure in some or all of them.

Deep concern for the truth and for the difference between what makes sense and what does not make sense are central to critical thinking. A few of the jurors (#1, #4, #7, #12), and even the judge, seem not to have an appropriate concern for the trial, even though it’s a capital trial!! They suffer from apathy. Apathy is a barrier to critical thinking.

A desire to be entertained can get in the way of critical thinking and a search for the truth, if it interferes with taking important matters seriously. It is somewhat troubling that a few of the jurors at the very beginning are just talking about how “interesting” it was to have a murder case. They also referred to the charisma of the prosecuting attorney. Being impressed by personal charisma can easily get in the way of evaluating the true weight of the arguments.

We see that good critical thinking follows where the evidence leads; it does not view the discussion as a contest between competing “sides.” The jurors should not make it personal. (#11 was very good at pointing this out.) They do the best thinking when they feel they have nothing personally at stake, only an interest in making the right decision.

Juror #10 is forced to face up to his own bigotry when he’s subjected to the critical judgments of others. Likewise, we can push ourselves to confront our own critical thinking lapses if we develop our critical thinking skills.

When Juror #7 (baseball tickets) changes his vote to not guilty, juror #11 (foreign accent) confronts him. #7 says, “I don’t have to explain to anybody why I changed my vote.” But we sense that we all do have some obligation to defend our beliefs and the claims we make, even if someone’s life is not on the line.

Review of the Evidence Against the Accused

(notes from Critical Thinking by Bassham et al.)

1. The old man downstairs claims (a) he heard the accused yell, "I'm gonna kill you!" followed by the sound of a body hitting the floor, and (b) he saw the accused running down the stairs fifteen seconds after the murder.

2. The woman across the el-tracks claims she saw, through the windows of a passing el-train, the accused stab his father.

3. The knife was identified as the defendant's by several witnesses and was allegedly one-of-a-kind.

4. The accused had a weak alibi. He couldn't remember the names of the movies or who played in them. Also, he claims, implausibly, that the knife fell through a hole in his pocket on his way to the movies.

5. The accused had a motive: his father had regularly beaten him up, and his father had “hit” him earlier that evening.

6. The accused had a prior record (including two arrests for knife fighting).

The Way the Voting Went:

Juror #8 was the first to vote not guilty. #9 (kind old man) was the first one to join him – “I support his motives.”

Juror #8 argues that the man downstairs could not have heard the boy or identified his voice “with the train roaring past his window.” #9 understands the witness as a “lonely old man.” #8 points out that we all say “I’m gonna kill you” sometimes. Juror #5 (kid from slum background) changes his vote.

Juror 8 points out that the defense lawyer was court appointed and didn’t put up a very vigorous defense. #11 asks why the kid would come back 3 hours later – why he would leave the easily identifiable knife in the first place but take care to not leave any prints. Juror #11 (foreign accent juror) then changes his vote.

#8 demonstrates that the old man downstairs couldn’t have made it to the door in 15 seconds. #3 gets very angry and yells, “I’ll kill him,” to #8. #8 says, “You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?” #11 tries to get everyone back on track with “This is the remarkable thing about democracy…” He points out that they should all be more objective and impartial.

#2 (voice of Piglet) and #6 (average working guy) change their votes. Now it’s “even Steven.” #10 (head cold guy) says to #2, “You think too much, you get confused.” It starts raining. Jurors cooperate to get the windows closed. The lights are turned on. #7 discovers that the fan works now – “must have been on the same switch with the lights.” The fan brings some sense of relief; #7 – “Better, huh?”

#8 asks #4 (stockbroker) if he could recall details from a movie, even if he were “under a great emotional stress.” He presses #4 to remember movies he saw a few nights earlier, and #4 has some difficulty. We notice a bead of sweat run down his forehead.

#5 (kid from the slums) explains how anyone experienced with a switch-blade knife would knife someone underhanded.

#7 (baseball tickets) switches his vote. (“I’ve had enough of this yackety-yacking.”) #11 objects to his switching for irrelevant reasons.

Another vote is called for. #12 (advertising guy) and #1 (foreman) have switched.

#10 (mean Mr. head cold) goes on his racist rant (“those people,” “don’t you know his type?” “there’s a danger here”). The other jurors one by one get up and turn their backs on him. #4 (stockbroker) says, “Sit down and don’t open your mouth again.”

#8 (Henry Fonda) starts up discussion again, saying that “prejudice always obscures the truth.”

#4 (stockbroker) says he’s still voting guilty because of the eyewitness testimony of the woman across the el tracks. He confronts #12 (advertising guy). 12 switches back to “guilty.”

#9 (kind old man) brings up the marks on the woman’s nose, from glasses. #4 (stockbroker) and #10 (head cold guy) change their votes, and #12 changes back to not guilty.

#8 (Henry Fonda) says to #3, “You’re alone.” #3 argues, “Everything, and I mean every little thing says he’s guilty. What do ya think, I’m an idiot or something? Rotten kids. You work your life out!” Then he has his emotional breakdown. Awkward moment. #3 (Angryman) sobs, “Not guilty. Not guilty.”

#9 – “What’s your name?”

#8 – “Davis.”

#9 – “My name’s McConnell. Well, see ya.”

THE END.

How The Evidence Was Weakened or Undermined by CRITICAL THINKING

Versus 1a: The el-train was making too much noise for the witness to have reliably identified the defendant's voice.

Versus 1b: Juror #8 proved that it would have taken the witness at least 41 seconds (actually 31 seconds in the film: time it!) to have walked from his bedroom to the front door – not the fifteen seconds the witness claimed. Moreover, there are general reasons for doubting the credibility of the old man’s testimony. As Juror #9 pointed out, the witness apparently longed for the attention he was getting as a witness to murder. He may have made himself believe that he heard the boy’s voice and saw him on the stairs, to make himself valuable to the proceedings. Also, according to Juror #3, he was confused much of the time on the stand.

Versus 2: As Juror #9 pointed out, the woman had marks on her nose, indicating that she wore glasses. Since the woman presumably wasn't wearing her glasses at the time of the murder, and she had to look through a passing el-train, it's doubtful she could have clearly identified the defendant some 60 feet away.

Versus 3: Juror #8 bought another knife just like the murder weapon at a pawn shop just a few blocks from the defendant's apartment; this proved that the knife wasn't unique. Moreover, why would the accused have carelessly left the knife sticking in his father's chest (while carefully wiping off any fingerprints) and then come back to the apartment, knowing that the murder had likely been detected and that the knife could be identified as the one he had just bought?

Versus 4: As Juror #8 showed, it's not always easy to remember details when one is under great emotional stress.

Versus 5: As Juror #8 pointed out, it's not clear how strong a motive this was, given the defendant's long history of physical abuse.

Versus 6: On the other hand, as Juror #5 pointed out, someone as handy with a knife as the accused probably would have gone for his victim underhanded.

It is very hard to explain why the boy would have the presence of mind to wipe his prints off the knife but still leave the knife in the father’s chest in his panic. It is also hard to explain why he would go back three hours later to get the knife.