A review of “12 Angry Men” (1957 movie)

“You've listened to a long and complex case, murder in the first degree. Premeditated murder is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. You've listened to the testimony, you've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies in this case. It's now your duty to sit down and try to separate the facts from the fancy. One man is dead, another man's life is at stake. If there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused – uh, a reasonable doubt – then you must bring me a verdict of ‘Not Guilty.’ If, however, there's no reasonable doubt, then you must, in good conscience, find the accused ‘Guilty.’ However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous. In the event that you find the accused ‘Guilty,’ the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy. The death sentence is mandatory in this case. You're faced with a grave responsibility.”

– The judge in “12 Angry Men” (1957), in one of the earliest scenes of the movie

Some comments on this movie, and how I personally prefer it to the 1997 remake …

In 1954, the screenwriter Reginald Rose wrote a teleplay that was to debut on CBS. The teleplay was “Twelve Angry Men,” and it would soon become a classic. It aired on September 20th, 1954, and was soon adapted for the stage in 1955. But the most famous adaptation of the play was the 1957 movie, starring Henry Fonda in the lead role. There was another movie that updated it somewhat in 1997, forty years after the original film came out. The remake has many positive virtues, including a more ethnically diverse cast. The original film has an all-white cast, although both films had an all-male cast (at least for the twelve jurors). Both films have superb acting, and I think the acting quality is just about neck-and-neck for these two movies. But in some ways, I still tend to prefer the earlier version, because it had much less profanity. The 1957 version had maybe two swear words in the entire movie. The 1997 version is filled with profanity, and earned a PG-13 rating for this reason. This is not really my cup of tea, and makes me want to avoid the remake for the most part.

A brief overview of the plot (warning: may contain spoilers) ….

Every version of this story seems to work well as a drama – at least, for those versions that I have seen. But the movie is also philosophically interesting in many ways. It is not just about twelve characters who happen to be thrown together for a few hours of intense debate – the movie also tries to profile our jury system as a whole. The movie is an interesting character study, because the characters bounce off of each other throughout the movie, debating the complex details of this particular case. But the movie also shows that what can seem “cut-and-dried” at first is seldom quite as straightforward as it seems. (I must give a spoiler alert for this next part, for those who have not seen this film.) Testimony that seemed credible at first is thrown into serious question later on, and witnesses that seemed reliable no longer seem to be such in the end. At first, eleven of the jurors think that the boy really is guilty, and only one of them initially votes “not guilty.” But eventually, this lone juror converts all of the others to his point of view, and convinces them to vote for the defendant’s acquittal. Before the movie finishes, issues of prejudice, incompetent legal counsel, and the default presumption of innocence all come into play. The movie makes the point that the jury system was supposed to be impartial, and is not supposed to be based on charm or demographics – or any other ultimately irrelevant factor.

Some comments on “innocent until proven guilty” (a. k. a. the presumption of innocence) …

The most important legal issue of this movie may be the presumption of innocence itself. The audience at the time of the original film tended to favor capital punishment for convicted murderers, and strongly supported the institution of the police force (and did not oppose them as often as people do today). Nonetheless, they also believed strongly in standards of evidence before convicting someone, as the popularity of the era’s defense-lawyer show “Perry Mason” makes clear. This was a generation that believed strongly in the Constitution, and its tendency to promote the well-being of society. They believed in constitutional guarantees of due process, and upheld them in the American court system. Although people sometimes slipped through the cracks (and still do sometimes), this was – and still is – an extreme rarity (and with advances in forensic science, it's becoming even more rare today). Prosecutors were ultimately required to prove someone guilty before they were allowed to punish them, and this is one of the most indispensable safeguards of human rights. Indeed, human rights simply cannot be protected without such safeguards. Countries whose legal systems require defendants to “prove” their innocence have a significantly worse track record when it comes to protecting human rights, and their prison systems have alarmingly high numbers of people who have been wrongfully convicted.

The fictional defense attorney “Perry Mason,” as portrayed by Raymond Burr in the TV show

The serious consequences of allowing a murderer to go free …

But why is this so important? Is it not more “dangerous,” some say, to risk allowing a criminal to roam the streets and terrorize the public? What is the importance of one innocent defendant, these people say, when compared with the entirety of the (mostly) innocent public – whose rights would be unprotected by the risks from allowing a murderer to go free? This issue is not unimportant, and it is somewhat absent from this movie. The closest that it comes to addressing this issue is when Juror #6 says something like “Suppose you talk us all out of this, and the kid really did knife his father.” One additional comment would have been helpful, such as “Suppose he then goes out onto the streets, and knifes somebody else. What good would that do us?”

Sir William Blackstone, a famous English jurist whom I will quote below

The even more serious consequences of condemning an innocent person (especially to die) …

Nonetheless, the point of this movie is a valid one, which is that the other kind of error (convicting an innocent person) is far more serious. As the English jurist William Blackstone once put it, “the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.” (Source: “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” Book IV, Chapter 27) John Adams actually expounded on this doctrine (known as “Blackstone's Ratio”) in the so-called “Boston Massacre” trial, when he gave the following argument for the defense: “We are to look upon it as more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is, because it’s of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me, whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself, is no security. And if such a sentiment as this, should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security what so ever.” (Source: Adams' Argument for the Defense, 3-4 December 1770)

John Adams

Some comments on the standard of “reasonable doubt,” and what these words mean …

Truer words were never spoken. This is why the standard of “reasonable doubt” is applied in the American justice system. One character in the film (Juror #3) claims that the entire phrase “reasonable doubt” is “nothing but words,” when dismissing another character’s claim that he “ha[s] a reasonable doubt now.” Obviously, this argument is not presented sympathetically, since all of the main characters (including this one) are eventually converted to the opposite point of view. People who don’t value fine distinctions often accuse those of us who value them of being “hair-splitters,” or of “quibbling” and “nitpicking” over relatively minor distinctions. The trouble with this argument is that words do mean things, and that the distinctions between them are real and significant. Of course, “reasonable doubt” doesn’t mean just any doubt, but evidence that can “put a man in the electric chair” (as this movie puts it) should be “beyond a reasonable doubt.” If there is any reasonable cause for doubting the evidence against someone, that person should be set free, period. This conclusion seems so obvious to most Americans that it would seem “absurd” to them to attempt to prove it. Nonetheless, the frequency with which it is rejected elsewhere in the world testifies to the necessity of proving it. Moreover, it testifies to the necessity of showing that it is indeed indispensable for the true protection of human rights. This may be the most important lesson of the movie, and is reinforced by a number of scenes in the movie.

United States Bill of Rights

Conclusion: This movie needs to be seen today, and not only for its entertainment value

As I mentioned earlier, this movie works well as a drama, and is one of the classics of the entire courtroom genre – despite the fact that most of it takes place outside of the courtroom itself, after closing arguments have already been presented to the jury. But the movie is much deeper than it might seem at first glance, because it addresses issues of major importance for a democratic society. It addresses the problems with eyewitness testimony (at least in some forms), and the problems with admitting it into a courtroom. It addresses the problems of biased jurors, and their occasional tendency to taint the jury pool and (at least some of) its verdicts. And it addresses the constitutional protections of the legal system, and the need for their being extended to everyone who is accused of a crime. Such a movie is of enormous value, and should be shown in K-12 civics classes, in my opinion. But it’s also extremely entertaining, which may explain part of its enormous ability to persuade others. Abstract discussions of constitutional theory leave some audience members feeling a bit bewildered, so there’s a potential for boring them if these discussions are done poorly. But fortunately, this movie does its discussions quite well, and dramatizes their importance for our judicial system. It leaves you with an appreciation of the accomplishments of our own legal system, and how successful it really is. And it leaves you appreciating how the Constitution protects us, from the arbitrary decisions of the less enlightened judicial systems. Such a movie needs to be seen today, and not only for its considerable entertainment value.

Footnote to this blog post:

The United States Bill of Rights says that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (Source: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution)

The part about “due process of law” is among a number of constitutional provisions that imply a presumption of innocence, although the United States Constitution does not actually state this explicitly. Nonetheless, a Supreme Court case in 1895 correctly said that "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." (Source: Coffin et al v. United States, 1895)

I discuss these protections (and others) in another blog post about United States criminal law. (More about this here, if you’re interested.)

Trailer on YouTube

DVD at Amazon

If you liked this post, you might also like:

A review of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” (1939)

A review of “Judgment at Nuremberg” (1961) and “Nuremberg” (2000)

The federal judiciary serves for life, and can strike down laws

The tyrannical police state: The worst nightmare of our Founding Fathers

Actually, the death penalty IS constitutional (as the Fifth Amendment makes clear)