When I was in college, teachers of various subjects would recommend classic and profound movies to us, and most of the teachers recommended them according to their degree of preference, but "Twelve Angry Men" was recommended by jurisprudence teachers, criminal law teachers, and logic teachers. After watching it carefully, I have to say that this is a fairly high-quality movie, and it is no wonder that 303042 people can still get 9.4 after rating it, which is really excellent, and the release time is April 13, 1957, more than sixty years ago, and it is still respected by people, which is really valuable.
The content of the film is also very hardcore, telling the story of twelve jurors from different industries, different age groups, and different regions, "defending" an eighteen-year-old boy. Next, I will not talk about the historical background, do not talk about the relationship between the characters, do not talk about the development of the plot, only talk about the importance of "critical thinking" to "choice" possessed by the most representative no. 8 juror; at the same time, explore the cultivation method of exercising critical thinking to help everyone get rid of the dilemma of thinking; finally, according to the clues provided by the film, a brief analysis of the application of the principle of "doubting guilt and never having" in China's criminal law to the case.
Writer Brooke Noel Moore writes in his book Critical Thinking:
Critical thinking is not a blind action or reaction, not at the mercy of temptations, not easily disturbed by emotions, greed, irrelevant considerations, stupid prejudices; the goal of critical thinking is to make wise decisions and draw the right conclusions. It can be said that critical thinking is thinking that unfolds from the mind, and we think critically to consider whether our own (or others's) thinking is logical and meets good standards.
According to the definition, it is not difficult to find that the so-called critical thinking is not a crowd, not a wall grass, but a rational choice after the tempering of rational thinking; of course, it is not a bar, and now many people like what others say, no matter what three, seven, twenty-one, just raise the bar, the bar to you directly do not want to talk to him, or even want to break off.
In fact, critical thinking is just thinking, and justice means rational analysis and thinking, without selfishness or prejudice to anything, only starting from the thing itself, based on facts, and making reliable and rational choices.
1. Bridan effect:
The Danish philosopher Bridan once told a parable that a little donkey, who had found two piles of grass in a dry wasteland, starved to death in infinite choices and wandering because he could not decide which pile to eat first. Later, people called this phenomenon of indecision and indecision in the decision-making process the "Buridan effect".
In this film, there are many places that embody the "Buridan effect", in which a total of five votes are cast, from the first eleven people who firmly believe that the boy is the culprit, to the subsequent quarrels and games, some of them began to hesitate, not knowing which camp to throw.
In real life, we often have such a dilemma. When graduating from college, it is necessary to continue to study graduate school or enter the society and participate in work; to focus on the family, or to focus on the career; to pursue companies with more salaries, or to find companies with great room for progress and great possibilities to improve themselves; to obey the arrangements of parents, to find a stable job in the hometown to see the end, or to go to the big city to work hard, break out of the sky that small counties and towns can't give...
The best way to deal with the "Bridan effect" is to adopt critical thinking, rational analysis, and then make a choice on the spot. You know, opportunities can not be sought, and delaying again and again will miss good opportunities, rather than hesitating and missing good opportunities, even if the choice is not satisfactory, it is better than staring to death because of the difficulty of choosing like a donkey.
2. Broken window effect:
For the perfect thing, everyone will instinctively maintain it, not to destroy, consciously prevent the phenomenon of destruction; on the contrary, it is harmless to make it worse if something is defective or has been destroyed. The ensuing acts of destruction are also often ignored and left to fend for themselves.
The eleven people who initially cast the boy's death penalty in the film were also affected by the "broken window effect" and voted in favor of the court's decision without thinking.
He was born in the slums, his mother died when he was nine years old, he spent a year and a half in an orphanage, when his father was imprisoned for forging documents; he was born bad, he was an angry wild child, he went to the juvenile court at the age of ten, because he threw stones at his teacher, at the age of fifteen he went to a correctional institution, because he stole a car, he was arrested for robbery, he was caught twice for a knife fight, he was indeed a master of knife use...
Because he has a bad deed, because he is a bad boy, because he has done a lot of bad things, and because he is good at using knives, he must be a murderer, so everyone does not have to defend him at all, he should be sentenced to death.
This is the father of fierce speech
This is the typical "broken window effect", everyone starts to crowd without thinking, this boy is like the car that has been broken out of the window, since it is rotten, it is okay to simply destroy it a little, this psychology led to eleven jurors with a relaxed choice to vote for the death penalty.
In real life, the "broken window effect" examples abound, failed the college entrance examination, passed a not very good university, then mix up the days, anyway, this school is not bad; it does not matter if you go to work and get by, anyway, the salary is so little; in the relatively backward small county, you will find garbage everywhere, after all, everyone is casually thrown, you do not lose but suffer losses...
But, come to think of it, is this really the case? Can a broken jar only be broken? Can't you plant a few wildflowers and decorate the room? Failing the college entrance examination, the university you are studying in is not good, can you study hard, do you work hard? There are countless talents from not very good universities, don't they? The small county town is dirty, you don't throw garbage, he doesn't throw garbage, the sanitation worker reduces the burden a little, and everyone looks refreshed a little bit, isn't it?
Living in this era, we can't restrain others, so we can restrain ourselves, just like the eighth juror in the movie, since we can't agree with other people's points of view, we always insist on our own point of view.
Did you find it? No critical thinking is like a broken jar, such a person has no soul, like a walking dead, get by, even if the opportunity is in front of you, it will be difficult to choose because of vacillation, and finally regret it.
It can be seen from the film that Juror No. 8 has a unique charismatic and rational choice, standing out in the crowd, not because he speaks loudly, not because he is tall, not because he is arrogant and rude, but because he has critical thinking, from voting not guilty alone to finally voting innocent together with twelve people, which shows how attractive the thinking is. Watching the film carefully, and then carefully observing the excellent people around you, it is not difficult to find that there are ways to refer to and learn:
1. Cognitive humility, acknowledging the limitations of one's own thinking.
Juror No. 8 in the film is like this, whether it is from dressing up or talking and manners, he gives people the feeling of being polite and humble. Even in the course of the heated debate that followed, he always admitted that although he supported the boy's innocence, he had the same clue as the other eleven, saying that he did not know whether the boy was really the murderer, but before the truth was revealed, he was willing to peel back the cocoon and find the truth step by step.
This is Juror Number Eight
The first juror to agree with him concluded:
This gentleman had been fighting us alone, and he didn't say the boy was innocent, he just said he couldn't be sure he was guilty. It's not easy to fight ridiculous rhetoric alone, so he desperately wants to win support, I support him because I agree with his motives, that kid may have really killed people, but I want to hear more testimony, and the vote is now 10:2 (ten votes for the child is guilty, two votes for the child is not guilty).
Admittedly, juror number eight is very humble, and it can be seen in the film that he calmly and objectively responds to everyone's criticism of him, because some people want to go to the movies, some people want to go to the ball game, some people want to go home, most people want to rush to the end of the work, go home early, only he wants to get more testimony, go further from the truth, and give the boy a chance to be born again.
I think that at this time, he realized the limitations of his own thinking, no matter how hard he tried to defend the boy, after all, the ability of one person is limited, and only by adding the ideas of the other eleven people can he explore the truth of the incident step by step, and can he give the boy a chance to have a life again.
In real life, it is not difficult for us to observe the excellent people around us, they are all realistic, one says one, just like Dumas said: "One or two kinds of sincerity are equal to a ton of wisdom"; of course, it is never ignorant to pretend to understand, and it is very modest, as Shakespeare said: "Honesty can most touch people's hearts.".
Only at any time, maintaining cognitive humility and acknowledging the limitations of your own thinking, can you discover your own shortcomings, and then improve and move closer to the ideal.
2. Trust reasoning and practice true knowledge.
The case had gone through the cross-examination session of the court, and the old man who had suffered a stroke was one of the witnesses, and the testimony he gave was that it took him 15 seconds to hear the voice and see the boy running downstairs. Neither the court nor the lawyer nor the prosecutor raised any objection to this and expressed acceptance of the testimony.
But in front of the remaining eleven, juror No. 8 carefully observed the configuration map and calculated the distance from the old man's bedroom to the door, and simulated it himself, according to the walking speed of the stroke old man, which took 41 seconds.
Eight simulates stroke elderly timing
Similarly, they also overturned the testimony of another witness, because according to common sense, myopic people do not sleep with glasses on, and it is even more impossible to see the crime scene from a distance at night with the naked eye.
At this point, the vote becomes 3:9 (three for guilt and nine for innocence).
At this time, the reasoning old man and the number eight are each other's highlight moments, exuding the brilliance of reason. Because a small clue, constantly exploring whether the logic behind it is rigorous, is an act that should be highly praised, and questioning is the first step to finding the truth.
I admire people who trust reasoning, because only through reasoning can rational conclusions be drawn. We also have to trust reasoning, after all, practice produces true knowledge.
3, know how to empathize, embrace opposing views.
At the end of the film, Juror No. 8 sees the father who is holding his head and is lost, the man who has just had a fierce quarrel with him and almost beat him up, but at this moment, he helps him remove his clothes from the hanger and gently cover him.
Juror Number Eight was ready to hand the clothes to the father
The father, who had always said that he was going to send his child to the electric chair, had a particularly unpleasant experience with his son, and it was still difficult to let go, so he did not believe that the child was innocent, not so much that he hated the boy as that he was complaining about his son. He replaced this boy with his own son, so his words have always been very extreme. At one point, he even provoked juror No. 8, who had always been mild-mannered, and he angrily yelled at him:
I feel sorry for you, only a madman wants to press the electric chair switch himself, as soon as you walk in here, you look like you want to take the place of Skywalker, you are out of a selfish heart, you want to see the child sentenced to death, not because of the facts, you are a sadist.
It is hard to imagine that the two people who had just made a big fuss later began to feel sorry for each other's behavior, and although Number Eight did not say it, his behavior revealed his apologies.
In real life, we often swear not to interact with each other because of a small contradiction, but it is always inevitable to meet in a narrow way, at this moment, it is not one person who is embarrassed, but two similar groups. You can't persuade others to be generous, after all, you have not experienced her past, but if you have critical thinking, you will have more rational choices, and the embarrassing situation should have another way of solving the problem.
Starting from the film, I think that at this moment, the number eight completely stands in the position of the father to think about the problem, it is not difficult to speak badly, but the difficulty is to know how to think differently after a big move, embrace opposing views, re-examine their own behavior, maybe not to say good, but also to try to repair each other's relationship.
Therefore, in order to have critical thinking and make the best choice in difficult situations, you need to do three things: cognitive humility and acknowledge the limitations of your thinking; trust reasoning and practice true knowledge; and know how to think in empathy and embrace opposing views.
This is called doubtful non-prosecution or insufficient evidence in China's Criminal Procedure Law, and when a case has undergone two supplementary investigations and has one of the following circumstances, it cannot be determined that the criminal suspect constitutes a crime and needs to be investigated for criminal responsibility, it is insufficient evidence and does not meet the requirements for prosecution:
Where the constituent elements of the crime lack the necessary evidence to prove it; where the evidence on which the conviction is based is in doubt and cannot be verified to be true; where the contradiction between the evidence on which the conviction is based and between the evidence and the facts of the case cannot be reasonably excluded; where the conclusions drawn on the basis of the evidence have other possibilities and cannot be excluded from reasonable doubt; and where the facts of the case are found on the basis of evidence do not conform to logic and rules of thumb, and the conclusions reached are clearly unreasonable.
The film does not give the final court verdict, but based on the efforts of the twelve angry men, the following new clues are drawn:
The witness who said that he had seen the boy stabbing his father was clearly lying, because she was short-sighted and could not see clearly from a distance at night; moreover, there was a tram passing by, indicating that the old man said that he heard the boy say that he was going to kill his father was false; moreover, the old man had to take 41 seconds to get from the bedroom to the door, it could not be just 15 seconds he said, because the old man who had suffered a stroke could not walk so fast. Speaking of the exquisite folding knife that was difficult to buy, Juror No. 8 pulled out the exact same one, indicating that the shopkeeper was lying.
The markings were the murder weapons provided by the court, and the other was taken from the pocket of the eighth
Combining all the above contents, according to the provisions of our law, if the procuratorate does not find other new evidence, but only the content provided in the film, then it will not be prosecuted because of insufficient evidence, and the boy will eventually be acquitted.
Write in the last words:
This is a very shocking movie, the black and white screen gives us a lot of knowledge points, the most striking is the importance of "critical thinking" to "choice", if the eighth juror does not have critical thinking, does not insist on his choice, the fate of the boy will be rewritten, of course, we will not have the opportunity to appreciate such a high-quality movie.
Therefore, critical thinking is very important, but because of the obstacles of the Bridan effect and the broken window effect, many people do not have critical thinking, like a soulless body. Therefore, we must try our best to do it in the future: cognitive humility, acknowledge the limitations of our own thinking; trust reasoning, practice true knowledge; know how to think in empathy, and embrace opposing views. Only in this way can we stand out in the crowd and get rid of the dilemma of thinking at the same time.
Life is faced with countless choices, from primary school choice, middle school school choice, college entrance examination school choice, study and course selection, graduation career choice, marriage and mate selection, that is, there are countless decisions to choose in the work. How to ensure that the choice is correct? How to ensure that the comprehensive benefits of the choice are maximized? Using critical thinking reduces mistakes, has critical thinking, and makes the choices that make the most satisfying choices for you. You, me, him, each of us needs to think critically!