Introduction
Reaching a consensus among several individuals with strong opinions is a challenging task. One example of such a discussion is 12 Angry Men, which depicts a jury discussing a progressively complex case of murder supposedly committed by a teenager. The following essay argues that effective combination of logos and pathos used by Juror 8 allows him to persuade his fellow jurors.
Definitions
First, it is important to identify ethical strategies used by Juror 8 to frame his arguments. The most common strategies, also referred to as modes of persuasion, are ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos is a method of persuasion in which the speaker uses their authority and reputation to add credibility to the presented information. Pathos is a method of persuasion that relies on emotions and feelings invoked by the presentation. Finally, logos is the appeal to rationality and critical thinking (Shabo 8). It can be argued that Juror 8 effectively and appropriately applies pathos and logos to convince his fellow jurors.
Use of Pathos
The first instance of an appeal to pathos can be found in the discussion that follows the initial vote. After being reminded by Juror 3 of the crime supposedly committed by the suspect, he responds that the boy is eighteen years old. While Juror 8 does not develop his argument, it is clear that the age of a prosecuted individual necessitates a more careful investigation. He also explains his decision to vote “not guilty” by having difficulties of sending a boy to die by simply raising his hand without talking about it first (Lumet). Such a move allows invoking a similar feeling in the otherwise impartial jury. Finally, he constantly reminds his fellow jurors that the case at hand is a matter “of somebody’s life” (Lumet). The latter is especially important since many of the jurors clearly treat the entire procedure as a nuisance and approach the case without the necessary criticism. Admittedly, the reaction of the jury suggests that this strategy is only marginally successful. Nevertheless, it sets the stage for the subsequent logical argument.
Use of Logos
The vast majority of arguments used by Juror 8 are consistent with the logos mode of persuasion. On several occasions, he challenges the quality of evidence and plausibility of statements made by the witnesses. For instance, in response to a detailed description of the witness testimony recounted by Juror 10, Juror 8 points to the fact that the line of sight was obfuscated by a passing elevated train (Lumet). In the same manner, he points to the fact that some of the information presented as incriminating the boy is insufficient for establishing the personality of a killer (Lumet). Finally, when given an opportunity to present his viewpoint, Juror 8 brings up several important details, all of which are based on a rational approach.
For instance, he suggests that a court-appointed defense counsel may not be sufficiently motivated to make a responsible inquiry. In another example, he makes a convincing case regarding the ownership of a knife found at the crime scene. All of the identified arguments are based on sound reasoning, which requires an equally elaborate response from his opponents. At this point, it should be mentioned that in the latter case, the persuasive effect is amplified by a carefully orchestrated presentation. Instead of objecting to the claim that a knife is unique, Juror 8 quietly draws the knife out of his pocket and sticks it into a table next to the murder weapon. Such behavior is more consistent with pathos rather than logos as it uses the element of surprise to strengthen the emotional response of the audience.
However, it also utilizes the visual element of the presentation – instead of relying on his word, the fellow jurors are able to compare the two items and reach their conclusions. Thus, in this scenario pathos is effectively combined with logos. Next, it is important to point out that at least in one instance, Juror 8 appeals to the Constitution by reminding Juror 2 that the burden of proof is not on the defendant. In this way, he ensures that the rights of the suspect are upheld. In a broader sense, the presumption of innocence referred to by Juror 8 serves as a basis for his stance throughout the argument, which aligns with the concept of reasonable doubt (Hughes and Lavery 265). The character in question systematically challenges each of the arguments put forward by the jury in order to point to inconsistencies, gaps, and weaknesses. Importantly, he does so in a non-confrontational way. It can be said that the success of Juror 8’s approach is largely due to his ability to encourage a critical approach in others.
Non-Confrontational Manner
The non-confrontational manner in which Juror 8 presents his arguments deserves a separate mention. Throughout the course of the discussion, he respectfully acknowledges and addresses all of the points put forward by fellow jurors. However, while it is apparent that he disagrees with most of them, he rarely does so explicitly. Instead, he introduces additional details, creating a situation where the speaker arrives at an independent conclusion. An example of this approach is a scene in which the jury reexamines the testimony involving the elevated train. Juror 8 starts by reconstructing the scene. After each key detail, he asks for the jury’s confirmation to make sure his arguments are consistent with views of others. Every time his position is challenged, he politely asks for the opponent’s take on the subject. Thus, each of the participants of the discussion feels his contribution to the conclusion by the time it is voiced (Herrick 122). At a certain point, he obtains support of other jurors and leads the discussion by asking the questions.
Acknowledgment of Weaknesses
Finally, it is necessary to acknowledge the fact that Juror 8 respectfully agrees with many of the points brought up by fellow jurors. In one example, Juror 7 suggests that the attempt to hang the jury will accomplish nothing since the next trial will find the defendant guilty. To this, Juror 8 replies “You’re probably right” (Lumet). As can be seen, he admits the weakness of his position but points to the fact that this outcome is not definitive. In another example, he agrees with Juror 7 that the task at their hands is difficult, respecting his effort. Finally, he honestly admits that he does not know whether the boy is innocent and whether his story is plausible. Importantly, in the former case, he precedes his response with a long pause that indicates doubt. In this way, he explicitly admits the existence of gaps in his reasoning. However, such a move also sets the stage for a more open and honest discussion.
Conclusion
As can be seen from the analysis above, Juror 8 uses a number of techniques to persuade his fellow jurors. Specifically, he appeals to the concept of reasonable doubt by challenging the evidence and testimonies of the witnesses. At the same time, he maintains a non-confrontational stance by acknowledging the opponents’ arguments and evaluating their plausibility. Next, he presents the facts and encourages the fellow jurors to make their conclusions. Finally, he introduces the elements of pathos into his logos-based narrative to establish the sense of trust and honesty necessary for reaching a consensus.
Works Cited
Herrick, James A. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction. 6th ed., Routledge, 2018.
Hughes, William, and Jonathan Lavery. Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the Basic Skills. 7th ed., Broadview Press, 2015.
Lumet, Sidney, director. 12 Angry Men. United Artists, 1957.
Shabo, Magedah. Rhetoric, Logic, and Argumentation: A Guide for Student Writers. Prestwick House Inc, 2010.