-
Essay / 12 Angry Men - 844
Juror #1 originally thought the boy was guilty. He was convinced that the evidence was concrete enough to convict the boy. He continued to think this until the jury voted for the first time and found that one of the jurors thought the boy was innocent. Then, throughout the film, all the jurors were gradually convinced that the boy was not guilty. His first rhetorical appeal used was that of logos. He based his guilty verdict on the logical information provided in the courtroom. He continued to feel this way until later in the film, when he changed his appeal to pathos. The decision to change his mind was prompted by the fact that the other jurors began to change their minds. While the one juror who believed the boy was innocent continued to try to convince the others that there was a chance they could all be wrong, most of the jurors were beginning to see that possibility. Every time there was a new reason why he might be innocent, each juror had more to think about. Eventually, the argument over the glasses swayed everyone just enough to withdraw the guilty verdict and free the boy. My next statement concerns the sworn “old man.” Had he not voted not guilty a second time, the boy would have been found guilty. He said the reason he voted that way was because one juror stood up to the other 11 jurors. He believed that everyone needed to hear every argument because it concerned a man's life. Thanks to this man, the boy was saved. Its original rhetorical appeal was also logos. He based his choice of verdict on the logical information given in the courtroom. He used all the testimony and evidence to make what he thought was a logical decision. As the evening went on, I felt like his appeal turned into an ethos because of the juror who felt he was innocent. He was impressed by this man because he was able to stand in front of the group and stick to his guilty verdict without being swayed at all. The “old man” defended the man by telling everyone that they basically owed it to the man. boy to listen to all the arguments.