Writing in The Spectator, Leo McKinstry
argues that the defendant in 12 Angry Men was clearly
guilty and that "The self-righteous [Henry] Fonda character twists
every piece of evidence, and stretches the term 'reasonable doubt'
beyond any logical breaking-point." Blogger Matt
Sinclair Tiberius Gracchi
replies with a passionate defense of Fonda, the film, and trial
by jury. The Volokh Conspirators weigh in as
well, with Orin Kerr pointing out that the author of the original
play was "deliberately...unclear" about the guilt or innocence of
the accused. (No one brings up the feminist angle: Why were there
no women on the jury?)
If you haven't seen the movie or play, here's a condensed version:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245