12 Angry Men| The Power of Argumentation
【论证之力与现代文明】
【PREFACE】
12 Angry Men (TAM), is the first movie directed by Sidney Lumet. It is about a murder case in which twelve men are discussing whether the eighteen-year-old boy of killing his father is guilty or not.
Unanimous verdict of 'guilty’ or 'not guilty’ must be reached in the end of their argument. Simplicity stands out as a unique characteristic of the movie, but the overview of the judicial system as well as the spirits of law are portrayed within and without through simple characters,scenes and plots.
The film has no more than thirty people where twelve men take on the main acting in one small scene during most of the time. Only two names of them are given in the end. The boy on trial is caught up in a murder of his father in the midnight, also with the material evidence of a unique switchblade he has bought before the killing.
Davis
Two witnesses provide two pieces of powerful testimony. First, the testimony of the old man downstairs that he heard the accused swearing “I’m gonna kill ya” and saw the boy running downstairs 15 seconds after something hitting the floor sounds persuasive；Secondly, the testimony of the mid-aged woman across the street that she witnessed the whole killing through the last two windows of a passing el train sounds convincing.
However, the boy’s claim that he was at the movies and cannot remember the film’s name and its actors is weak and susceptive. That was why all men but Davis think that the boy is guilty in the very beginning.
But with time passing by and talk going on, the unbreakable testimony is breaking down one by one. Members of the jury in favor of 'not guilty’ are increasing. In the end, enough reasonable doubts unfold that twelve of them all agree on 'not guilty’.
SCENE ONE: THE OLD MAN’S TESTIMONY IN QUESTION
To begin with, Davis speaks with emotional appeals at the beginning and several times afterwards that the boy on trial has led a rather painful life foreighteen years and it is irresponsible to decide on his life-and-death question without deliberation and talk.
This pathos more or less strikes the chord ofthe jury present, say, Mccardle at least, for he votes not guilty in secret written ballot and argues that prejudice based on the boy’s background is full of ignorance.
Juror 3
Moreover, Juror 4 with similar living surroundings like the boystands up against the proposition that people from slums are potential menaces to society. When putting the two pieces of testimony together, Davis finds it impossible for the old man to hear the boy’s swear with the el roaring past in the meanwhile and some of them agree.
Mccardle further explains the old man might give false testimony to gain attention. As an old man himself, Mccardle could to some extent know the psychology of the witness of his age better than therest jury members. He explains with ethos and logos that the insignificant old man who tries to hide his crippled leg because of shame and little recognition all his life is likely to grasp this opportunity to get noticed.
Besides, the experiment conducted by Davis on the spot proves that the crippled old mancouldn’t manage to cover 43 feet, the distance from his bedroom to the front door, in 15 seconds to see the boy running down stairs.
SCENETWO: JUROR THREE CHANGES HIS VOTE IN THE END
When the discussion proceeds to testify whether the old man can manage to the door in 15 seconds, Juror 3 doubts that the old man knows clearly the difference between 15 seconds and 20 seconds, which contradicts his former statement that the old man’s testimony is unshakable. The bug in his own logic teaches himself a lesson.
Also, Juror 3 states facts about the murder and puts forward the testimony of the crippled old man, who heard quarrels upstairs and swears like“I’m gonna kill ya” at 00:10 and eyed the boy running downstairs after the noise of a body hitting the ground. Police identified the victim’s death time was around midnight.
Mccardle
However, Davis thinks the boy’s argument with his Dad cannot serves as a strong motive of committing murder since he is not unfamiliar with those affairs in terms of his background. Davis advances to single out that more often than not people don’t mean it when they speak the sentence 'I’mgonna kill ya’ out. Juror 3 despises the statement, but when irritated, he also yells he’ll kill Davis without real intention. From then on, his mind of voting guilty becomes wavering.
Furthermore, that Juror 3’s own son broke his heart gives the urge to punish difficult kids.Therefore, to him it is definitely probable that the boy on trial killed his father. Together with the broker, Juror 3 further emphasizes the concrete proofof the unusual switch knife found in the dead man’s chest. At this point, Davis puts out his switch knife similar to the boy’s, which proves that coincidenceis possible in a forceful way and undoubtedly lessens Juror 3’s faith in voting guilty.
In addition, that the broker, Juror 3’s close ally, isn’t able to recall the movie and its actor’ name clearly he saw four days ago when questioned by Davis even without emotional stress can in a way prove the possibility that the boy’s poor testimony is perhaps due to great emotionalstress. The broker gradually is convinced by Davis’s ethos and logos. Losing his last supporter, Juror 3 becomes stressful and less determined. From another experiment, the man from slum with his personal experience singles out that the boy is unlikely to make that kind of wound with the switch knife in real fight,which weakens the firmness of Juror 3.
Finally, inspired from the marks on the side of the broker’s nose, Mccardle brings the women’s eyesight in question andbreaks down her seemingly unshakable testimony, which makes Juror 3 give in and thus unanimous verdict of 'not guilty’ is achieved.
Terminat hora diem, Terminat Author opus.
作者：我的娜塔莎