Rather disorderly than angry

Rating: 5/10 (25 September 2013)

The inflamed comments are probably Pavlovian responses to the movie's politically correct quotient. Quality performers meet deep message. The most obvious flaw in this supposed classic, one of the most super-estimated films in history was as follows: real juries are allowed neither to carry their own experiences nor to consider evidence not presented at trial. If the jury had acted in accordance with the correct legal procedure, there would have been no basis for the plot, therefore no drama, therefore no catharsis. An intriguing theme doesn't always result in a good production. What shall I call a movie including clichéd, implausible characters, and a foreseeable twist (a 11-to-1 vote changing into 0-to-12)? Juries exist in order to allow the cold letter of the law to be broken, or temporarily suspended. That's what they're all about. That's their raison d'être. A judge can acquit a suspicious defendant for lack of evidence. A jury may convict him or her for "feeling his or her" guilt. The institution of the jury was thus an historical way to "humanize" lawsuits. If jurors were so one-dimensional, mindless and easy to persuade, courts should certainly keep them afar.