The jury of "Twelve Angry Men" acquitted you?

Today, I watched the movie "Twelve Angry Men" and lamented that the jury in the United States has such a great power to convict a suspect.

It's a story about whether the jury's suspicions about justice for his charges are justified.

Twelve men debated the fate of a young defendant accused of murdering his own father. Apart from the judge's perfunctory, almost weary shifting of responsibility to the jury members, the film never again features any trial process. The judge's tone implied that the jury would make the decision. We heard neither the voices of the plaintiffs nor the opinions of defence counsel. We only get some second-hand evidence while the jury is debating.

In terms of intent, the film is a crash course on the U.S. Constitution that allows for the interpretation of the provisions of a fair trial and the presumption of innocence of defendants. The film is unpretentious: With the exception of a succinct opening and a more succinct ending, the entire film takes place in a small jury room during New York's "Hottest Day of the Year."

Most court dramas end with a clear verdict, but "Twelve Angry Men" doesn't tell us until the end whether the defendant is innocent or guilty.

----- review from The Great Movie 2 by Roger Bert.