The ghetto, a unique dagger, reprimands from childhood, witness testimony, and poor English that is difficult to defend, the hard evidence is overwhelming and the truth is about to come out - this boy is the murderer of his father. There was no evidence to excuse him, and even his lawyers believed that the child was guilty. The jury of twelve and eleven made a judgment that conformed to the public's intuition and was guilty. The judge yawned in the courtroom, and a juror said, "It is obvious that the murderer is obvious, and the lawyer has to keep talking." Everyone thinks the child is guilty, but only jury No. 8 thinks that the child is innocent, the jury opinion Consistent rules forced everyone to stay in a small room and endure the sweltering heat to listen to Juror No. 8 to explain his point of view. He did not provide new evidence to prove the child's innocence, but only pointed out the loopholes in the existing evidence and presented the evidence under the surface. another possibility. At first no one believed him, didn't want to listen to him, thought he was just wasting everyone's time by voting acquittal, the "maybe" in Juror No. 8's words seemed very weak, the discussion could not proceed, and No. 8 proposed a new bet like a bet. To vote once, he proposes to vote anonymously instead of raising your hand this time, so that no one knows what other people have written, and they can follow their own ideas rather than being influenced by others, but the situation is not optimistic, jury number 8 is tight. He frowned and listened to the No. 1 ballot: "Guilty, guilty, guilty..." The audience's hearts were trembling with Juror No. 8. "Guilty" went on without any suspense, and when the singing was over, Juror No. 1 picked up a ticket "Not guilty" vote, pause for a while, stand up and sing this vote, so everyone has to stay here to continue to discuss whether the boy is guilty, the "not guilty" vote is an old grandfather, at this time he did not He was persuaded by No. 8's reason, but he admired No. 8's courage to fight against everyone and decided to give him more time. At the same time, he wanted everyone's attention and hoped that someone would listen to him, which also corresponds to his testimony that the old man "craved for attention". "Inferring the plot, Juror No. 8, who was fighting alone, had a companion, and then continued to recall the details of the case and testimony to find a breakthrough, and persuaded other jurors to believe that the child was innocent. Only one person believed in guilt, and then changed his unreasonable insistence under the watchful eyes of everyone, and reached an agreement with the other eleven people that he was not guilty. It took Juror No. 8 only an hour to find a breakthrough in the evidence, using strong evidence to overturn the jury's wrong point of view and convince everyone that the eighteen-year-old was innocent.
This architect is not very smart, but he is good at thinking, dares to ask questions, finds loopholes in the seemingly irrefutable evidence and deduces to prove his conjecture to overturn the seemingly reasonable evidence and use strong methods, or words Or act, convince the other jurors to change their minds and convince everyone that the boy is innocent.
The following is a brief analysis of the reasoning of Juror No. 8 and the process of persuading other jurors.
1. Premise
The jurors are not the police. They have not been to the scene of the crime and have no knowledge of the incident. They can only make their own judgments in court through court evidence and witness statements. The evidence throughout the film is as follows:
1. The old man who lived below the boy heard the boy shouting "I'm going to kill you" and fell to the ground, and when he rushed to the door, he saw the boy running downstairs;
2. The woman who lived on the opposite floor saw the process of the boy's murder through the tram;
3. The boy bought a knife that the owner claimed to be "unique" in a second-hand store and lost the knife, and the murder weapon was exactly the same as this knife;
4. The boy defended himself by saying that he went to see a movie that night but could not name the movie.
This is the condition that was presented at the beginning. The two witnesses were sure that the boy killed his father, the most powerful weapon was found, and the truth of the case was about to come out, but when everyone voted guilty, Juror No. 8 thought that such evidence could not be drawn. With the conclusion that the boy was the murderer, Juror No. 1 had no choice but to let everyone take turns to convince the stubborn juror.
The inferences of other jurors
However, it was only when the audience took turns to speak that the reason for these people to conclude that the boy was "guilty" was illogical. Some said, "I don't know, I just think he is guilty." You can't believe what they say. You know, they were born to be liars." Some people say that he was beaten by his father when he was a child, and that killing his father out of revenge was his motive for committing the crime. Someone abstained.
Analyzing the argument that "boys are born liars", the jurors gave the major premise "people who grew up in slums are liars", and then gave the minor premise "boys grew up in slums", so they came to the conclusion "boys are liars." fraud". But we can't generalize, we can't say that all slum people are liars and that they are not decent because we have been deceived by people in the slums. A judge sitting in the room got up and refuted this inference: he was also in the Ghetto grew up, but he now has a decent job. Such inferences are self-defeating.
Abstaining and "just think he's guilty" judgments may seem funny, but such situations abound in life when people make decisions based on their own intuition and first feeling, often without a deep understanding of the event and others. Influence, to make judgments in such circumstances, such judgments are often illogical and unreasonable, as the jurors in this case did, making hilarious judgments.
None of the eleven jurors gave a strong reason to prove the boy's guilt. The dagger and prejudice became evidence that they firmly believed that the boy was the murderer, and asked Juror No. 8 to explain why the knife appeared on the chest of the deceased. The known evidence made an explanation that the boy was not the murderer.
3. Juror No. 8's rebuttal
1. The murder weapon cannot prove that the boy is the murderer
The dagger that appears at the murder scene is not necessarily the boy's dagger. If it is, it may be found by someone else after the boy lost it, but everyone does not believe such an assumption and thinks it is a story made up by the 8th juror until the 8th jury. The juror took out a dagger that was exactly the same as the murder weapon. The second-hand shop owner falsely advertised that the dagger was not unique. A major piece of evidence that other jurors believed the boy was guilty was refuted, and their conviction was shaken, but other jurors were still Shouting and insisting on their point of view, then what about the woman who saw him kill, the old man who saw him rushing out the door, they complained that they were unwilling to discuss with juror number eight, and were unwilling to continue to listen to him, this time to do it again Re-voting, Juror No. 9 voted "Not Guilty" out of admiration, buying No. 8 more time for others to discuss finding more loopholes in the evidence with him.
2. Testimony of old men and women
The old man said he heard the boy yelling "I'm going to kill you", and a second later he heard the sound of a fall, and to find out what happened he ran to the door and saw the boy rushing out.
The woman said she woke up at night to see the boy kill his father through the tram window.
Juror No. 8 found inconsistencies in their testimony: "I used to live near a tram line, and whenever a tram passed, the noise was unbearable, so loud that you couldn't even think." Then he asked if the tram would pass through. How long, everyone agrees that it takes ten seconds, so it takes about two seconds for each car to completely pass through a point. The woman is very sure that she saw the murder in the two cars after passing the train, so the tram took six seconds before the deceased fell to the ground. Passed the old man's window, but the old man said that he heard the sound of falling to the ground a second after hearing the boy's shouting. If you believe the woman's testimony, then you must consider the possibility of the old man lying. But why did he lie? He heard the boy's yelling and the sound of his father falling to the ground. At this time, juror No. 9 complained that as an old man, he was eager to get attention. Naturally, this could not be used as evidence to prove that the boy did not kill, but it allowed the jury to give The elderly pay more attention, and they find that the elderly are lame. This major discovery can refute the testimony of the old man "rushing to the door and seeing the boy rushing out". Juror No. 8 even did a timing experiment in the room to prove to everyone that the old man could not go to the door and see the boy within 15 seconds. A figure running down the stairs.
So far, Juror No. 8 has persuaded five jurors to a reasonable doubt that the boy is innocent.
The woman's testimony was that Juror No. 9 observed that Juror No. 4 kneaded the bridge of his nose and saw the marks left by the glasses on both sides and realized that there was a problem. He asked Juror No. 4 if the marks were caused by other things, No. 4 denied this possibility. Such marks can only be left by wearing glasses for a long time. Then the woman has vision problems. She went to court without glasses to make herself look better. Then she saw the boy through the tram window. Murder was probably her fault. Juror No. 3 raised an objection. She saw that the boy murdered was at home alone, but Juror No. 8 immediately asked No. 3: "Do you sleep with glasses on?" No. 3 replied: "No, no one will wear them. Glasses to sleep." Then the woman did not wear glasses when she slept at home, and the inference that she did not see the scene clearly was established, and the problem of memory of the movie name persuaded Juror No. 4.
3. Can't remember the name of the movie
No. 8 used the method of questioning to ask No. 4 whether he remembered the name of the movie he watched with his wife. He hesitated for a while and did not say the correct name, which proves that it is possible for the boy not to remember the name of the movie he watched.
4. Summary
The reasoning made by Juror No. 8 was impeccable. He did not directly refute everyone's judgment of the boy's guilt, but through a little exploration, repeated the known evidence again and again, and found that the evidence we intuitively felt and the evidence after deliberation were mixed. difference. Juror No. 8 was not as arbitrary as others, and did not insist that the boy was innocent. He just raised his reasonable doubts about the existing evidence and let everyone no longer be sure that their first feeling about the evidence was correct and made their own. It's just suspicion. His method of convincing everyone that the evidence is not as good as what they see is very special. Instead of trying to express his own opinion, he will guide the other jurors at the appropriate time to say that the boy is innocent. The amount of information the jurors have is Equivalently, they are all rational citizens. As long as they are guided in their thinking, they will be able to find the loopholes in the original way of thinking. In this way, the "coaching" method of persuasion and guidance makes it easier for others to believe in the views of Juror No. 8 from the bottom of their hearts. Because this is the result of their thinking, not the appearance told by others.
The main scene of the film is just a small room. The hot weather and anxiety make the jurors impatient to leave here. The images of jurors who are excited and unwilling to think fill the first half of the film, which apparently corresponds to the "anger" in the title of the film. , the audience's emotions were aroused by the quarrel, as if they were also in a hot and small room to experience this fierce debate. Only after the debate did we realize how unreasonable and terrifying the subjective assumptions were, but the intuitive inferences of the brain almost ruined a child's future. While deeply shocked, I can't help but think about why mastering peer-to-peer information produces different judgments. First, class prejudice. "People in slums are liars." They are not trustworthy. Most of the murderers grew up in slums. So seeing the children in the slums murdering their fathers, from the police to the judges to the lawyers to the jurors, everyone subjectively assumes that the boy is the murderer, and believes in their own judgments. This is what they will do. The truth of the past cases It is the people in the slums who killed people. This is obviously a wrong idea of using the past to infer the future, but we can easily fall into such a thinking trap, because human beings learn from experience, and it is easy to make mistakes based on experience when encountering similar situations. logical judgment. The way to avoid this kind of thinking is really simple, ask a few more questions like Juror No. 8, they say the weapon is exactly the same as the boy's dagger and this dagger is unique, is that so? Apparently we can find another identical dagger. What's up with the inconsistency in the testimony of the old man and the woman? In fact, neither of them necessarily lied. There is a flashlight effect in psychology. In an emergency, people's memory is prone to deviations, resulting in false memories, and they are convinced of this memory later. A teacher in a university psychology class Arranged an actor to play the role of a robber who rushed into the classroom and snatched her backpack. Afterwards, the students in the class were asked about the appearance of the robber. Ten people had ten different opinions. Old people and women tell the reality of their memories but find contradictions, we should dig deeper and find the truth behind the testimony.
A classic film must have its rich content. No matter when, where, or from any perspective, you can read the inspiration for yourself. Civil law focuses on procedural justice and democratic rule of law in movies. When it comes to the collective unconscious phenomenon that exists when the collective makes a decision, this article briefly analyzes the reasoning process from the perspective of logic.
View more about 12 Angry Men reviews
