8
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: − 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. [http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-twelve-angry-men/themes.html]
no edit summary
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>
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>
==External links==
==External links==