Title: Deliberation and Dissent: 12 Angry Men versus the Empirical Reality of Juries
Abstract: 12 Angry Men is one of my favorite films, a movie I’ve seen many times and have enjoyed sharing with family, friends, and students. I watched it again recently with my thirteen-year-old son. Despite the movie’s melodramatic dialogue, dated stereotypes, and Freudian allusions, my son thought it was “pretty good.” What, I ask, was most interesting about it? “In the beginning almost all of them thought he was guilty, but in the end he was found not guilty. And he could have done it, you don’t know. But if you don’t know, you’ve got to vote not guilty.” The dramatic turnaround in the jury room is also part of its great appeal to me, as is the whodunit question that is left dangling at the end. The lonely dissenter played by Henry Fonda, who insists that the jury talk about the evidence before he will agree to convict, produces heated exchange and debate. In the process of their collective reasoning about the evidence, alternative accounts emerge, ones that individual jurors had not considered earlier. Jurors who were initially certain become uncertain, then switch to the other side. The movie’s dramatic enactment of the jury’s discussion shows the power of the dissenter and illustrates the great promise of group deliberation. It also emphasizes the point that in our system of justice, uncertainty about guilt means acquittal. Fifty years later, the movie still appeals, as evidenced by this anniversary issue of the Chicago-Kent Law Review. It is used in classrooms to help
Publication Year: 2007
Publication Date: 2007-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 11
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot