- Describe how two WoK affected the perception of the guilt or innocence of the defendent based on what was seen in class on Aug. 29
- There should be at least 1 reference to WoK material from the textbook for each WoK explored
According to the textbook, in summary, Language in TOK is rule-gorverned, intended, and both creative and open-ended. Briefly explaining, "rule-governed" refers to grammar and "intended" refers to the idea that Language is on-purpose; words have specific meanings and are pronounced in order to communicate those precise meanings. However, it is the "creative and open-ended" part of Language that creates conflict in the film because of the "open to interpretation" nature of words which can be manipulated in both directions of a two-sided argument. In "12 Angry Men" after the accused is voted guilty 11 to 1 (Juror #8), Juror #3 describes him as an "eighteen year old", a young man, while in his deffence Juror #8 refers to him as a "boy". These rational fallacies from both parts are Labels and Stereotypes, "criminal and potential menaces to society". The label "kid" is used multiple times in both forms, to imply immaturity and the need for taking responsibility for one's actions, and to imply vulnerability. Another example of this is the fact that this "kid" grew up without a mother and in the slums; which to Juror #8 means he has already suffered enough and doesn't deserve this accusation, however, to the other jurors it is yet another proof of his culpability.
Sense Perception is another Way of Knowing that plays an important role in the matter of the film, even so that it is more influential than Language.
Juror #1: "Suppose we go once around the table. I guess your first.."
Juror #2: "Oh... Well.. it's hard to put into words. I just think he's guilty. I though it was obvious from the word go. I mean, nobody proved otherwise."
Juror #8: "Nobody has to prove otherwise, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the defendant doesn't even have to open his mouth, that's in the Constitution."
Juror #2: "Oh well sure I know that. Umm what I meant was is..... well I.. I just think he's guilty. I mean.. somebody saw him do it".
Language well put aside, Sense Perception, specifically Sight here, is used as a valuable, powerful, and only justification. This is empiricism.
Juror #3: "..I just want to talk about facts. Number one. The old man lived downstairs under the room where the killing took place. At ten minutes after twelve, on the night of the killing, he heard loud noises, he said it sounded like a fight and he heard the kid yell out "Im going to kill you". Seconds later he heard the body hit the floor. Ran to the door, opened the door, saw the kid running downstairs and out of the house."....Juror #10: "Listen, what about the woman across the street? If the third testimony don't prove it then nothing does." Juror #11: "That's right, she was the one who actually saw the killing."
It is not unheard of that a witness' testimony has in the past lead to several miscarriages of justice, however, all these testimonies (fully based on Sense Perception) in "12 Angry Men" are recognized by Juror #3 and the other jurors as "facts".
