Changes

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>

The movie illustrates three particulars of [[justice]] unique to American democracy:

The movie illustrates three particulars of the [[justice|United States legal process]]:

#the defendant does not have to demonstrate his innocence. He is innocent until proven guilty.  

#the defendant does not have to demonstrate his innocence. He is innocent until proven guilty.  

#the verdict must be unanimous, since unanimity guards against a miscarriage of justice.  

#the verdict must be unanimous, since unanimity guards against a miscarriage of justice.