Difference between revisions of "Twelve Angry Men"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
("12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Two excellent movies about a jury in a murder trial. Initially, eleven jurors are ready to convict the defendant and are getting increasingly angry at the lone man who still has [[reasonable doubt]]. The movie follows the conversation of the jurors. Interestingly enough, the audience never finds out whether the defendant is guilty; this further stresses "innocence until proven guilty". | + | Two excellent movies about a jury in a murder trial. Initially, eleven jurors are ready to convict the defendant and are getting increasingly angry at the lone man who still has [[reasonable doubt]]. The movie follows the conversation of the jurors. Interestingly enough, the audience never finds out whether the defendant is guilty; this further stresses "innocence until proven guilty".<ref>'Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear-cut verdict. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt.' [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020929/REVIEWS08/209290301/1023 (Roger Ebert)] </ref> |
The movie illustrates three particulars of [[justice]] unique to American democracy: | The movie illustrates three particulars of [[justice]] unique to American democracy: | ||
Revision as of 15:52, April 12, 2007
Two excellent movies about a jury in a murder trial. Initially, eleven jurors are ready to convict the defendant and are getting increasingly angry at the lone man who still has reasonable doubt. The movie follows the conversation of the jurors. Interestingly enough, the audience never finds out whether the defendant is guilty; this further stresses "innocence until proven guilty".[1]
The movie illustrates three particulars of justice unique to American democracy:
- the defendant does not have to demonstrate his innocence. He is innocent until proved guilty.
- the verdict must be unanimous, since unanimity guards against a miscarriage of justice.
- the defendant can be convicted only in the absence of reasonable doubt on the part of the jury. [1]
External links
- Extensive quotes from the movie showing how Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) establishes reasonable doubt in the minds of the other jury members.
- ↑ 'Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear-cut verdict. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. It is about whether the jury has a reasonable doubt about his guilt.' (Roger Ebert)