What Fallacy In 12 Angry Men Was The Stockbroker
Guilt By Association
The first fallacy is an example of Guilt by Association (no Latin name).
Guilt by Association is when a stereotype is used as evidence to support an argument.
The character who committed this fallacy in Twelve Angry Men was the Stockbroker.
The Stockbroker said, “He is from a slum. Slums are breeding grounds for criminals.”
The Stockbroker committed a fallacy when he brought up the fact that the accused man is from the slums because his argument was that this would give him a predisposition to crime and therefore make it more likely that he was the murderer. He could just as easily be an innocent man living among other criminals. The trends of the community should not affect the jury’s opinion of how likely it was that he committed the crime. The Stockbroker could have not committed the fallacy by instead mentioning only the neighborhood to create relevance to where the crime occurred.
It is important to recognize that this is a fallacy that the Stockbroker committed because people, especially the men on the jury, can easily take this as fact and continue to base their decision-making on something that does not determine …show more content…
There was other concrete evidence in which the decision should be based; the Architect believes that his age makes him less likely to commit the crime. Following this statement, the jurors may have began to think of the suspect as a young innocent boy and not have him in such a negative light, although the Architect was not successful in persuading members of the jury. This fallacy could have been avoided if he only called out the fallacy the Father committed in the previous statement (“The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it.”). He could have said he is not a dangerous killer until they find the evidence to prove so; rather than countering a fallacy with another
The first fallacy is an example of Guilt by Association (no Latin name).
Guilt by Association is when a stereotype is used as evidence to support an argument.
The character who committed this fallacy in Twelve Angry Men was the Stockbroker.
The Stockbroker said, “He is from a slum. Slums are breeding grounds for criminals.”
The Stockbroker committed a fallacy when he brought up the fact that the accused man is from the slums because his argument was that this would give him a predisposition to crime and therefore make it more likely that he was the murderer. He could just as easily be an innocent man living among other criminals. The trends of the community should not affect the jury’s opinion of how likely it was that he committed the crime. The Stockbroker could have not committed the fallacy by instead mentioning only the neighborhood to create relevance to where the crime occurred.
It is important to recognize that this is a fallacy that the Stockbroker committed because people, especially the men on the jury, can easily take this as fact and continue to base their decision-making on something that does not determine …show more content…
There was other concrete evidence in which the decision should be based; the Architect believes that his age makes him less likely to commit the crime. Following this statement, the jurors may have began to think of the suspect as a young innocent boy and not have him in such a negative light, although the Architect was not successful in persuading members of the jury. This fallacy could have been avoided if he only called out the fallacy the Father committed in the previous statement (“The man’s a dangerous killer. You could see it.”). He could have said he is not a dangerous killer until they find the evidence to prove so; rather than countering a fallacy with another