Remade in China: Rule of Law, Democracy, and the Chinese 12 Angry Men

Against the background of the growing effort in the Xi Jinping era to sinicize democracy and rule of law, much critical attention has surrounded Chinese models of governance variously conceived as “humane authority” and “political meritocracy.” What is missing from the literature on the export of the so-called “Chinese solution,” however, is the consideration of popular cultural products. This article takes as its case study the state-sponsored film 12 Citizens, the 2014 remake of the classic 12 Angry Men, most famously known in its 1957 version directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Henry Fonda. As there is no jury system in China, 12 Citizens instead presents the scenario as a law school mock trial on Anglo-American law, with crucial elements indigenized to the local setting. In one masterly maneuver after another, the remake overturns the democratic tenor of the original. Yet as a metanarrative about adaptation, the film reveals ambivalent attitudes not only toward the jury system and the West but also toward adaptation itself, open to an alternative interpretation in which the figure of the citizen, as a member of a political community actively engaged in public matters, precisely takes center stage. This ambivalence challenges the very concept of “Chinese characteristics.”

Book Review: James M. Binnall, Twenty Million Angry Men: The Case for Including Convicted Felons in Our Jury System

In his book, Twenty Million Angry Men: The Case for Including Convicted Felons in Our Jury System, James Binnall discusses whether or not there is sound empirical evidence that proves that ex-convicts should be barred from participating in jury duty. Currently, most states in the United States permanently forbid those with a felony conviction from serving as a juror while some states allow convicted felons to serve only after their entire sentence (including parole and probation) is completed; Maine is the only state that has no restrictions whatsoever.

Mature Enough to Disobey Jurors, Women, and Radical Enfranchisement in Tocqueville’s Democracy in America

While many have pointed to Tocqueville’s admiration of the jury system as a schoolhouse for civic participation, I argue that Tocqueville sets up, but forgoes, the opportunity to make jurors empowered enough to counter the ills of democracy that he enumerates, specifically the tyranny of the majority and soft despotism. The education of American women, Tocqueville remarks, prepares them to be independent, confident and astute observers of social conditions, but these characteristics are eclipsed by their domestic responsibilities as wives and mothers. Juxtaposing two sections of Democracy in America that are normally thought of separately (juries and women), I show that Tocqueville falters in his perception of the radical enfranchisement of jurors and women because of his fears about the instability of democracy (with its delusions of equality) just as he provides some of the best arguments for the importance of their political interventions.

9. Trial by judge and jury

This chapter discusses how cases are processed in the Crown courts and trial by jury. It discusses the role and powers of the judge in relation to the management of cases, trial process and outcomes. It also discusses the jury system and how jury composition affects perceptions of the fairness and legitimacy of jury trial. Research about the impact of jury composition and juror attitudes on verdicts is discussed. The chapter goes on to consider whether key evidential rules unduly favour the defence or prosecution and attempts to further erode the practical significance of jury trial through the use of judge-only trials.

Critical Problems of Introducing Jury System in Kyrgyzstan

The article discusses the problems related to noncompliance with the constitutional provisions and other regulatory acts governing the issues of introducing jury system in Kyrgyzstan.