The kid was guilty as sin
Why the kid should have gone to the chair
Why Twelve Angry Men is liberal twaddle
Towards the end of the classic 1957 American courtroom drama Twelve Angry Men, the toughest juror turns bitterly on his colleagues: ‘Brother, I’ve seen all kinds of dishonesty in my day, but this little display really takes the cake.’ Furious that the rest of the jury now seem to be inclined towards a ‘not guilty’ verdict in a murder case, despite a wealth of evidence against the defendant, he protests, ‘You all come in here with your hearts bleeding all over the floor about slum kids and injustice ...What’s the matter with you guys?’
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Select an archive Spectator issue
Sarkozy’s burqa ban panders to racism, not feminism
Rod LiddleRod Liddle says that the French President may be right about Islam’s ideological content but that his proposal is shockingly illiberal and wrong-headed
No more consensus: this time there is a choice
Irwin StelzerThe next election will present voters with two distinct futures, says Irwin Stelzer: Labour’s rising taxes and love of the EU, or the Tories’ spending cuts and plans for the ‘broken society’
A Yorkshire genius in love with his iPhone
Martin GayfordMartin Gayford talks to David Hockney about drawing on his mobile phone, life on the Yorkshire coast, and planning lunch around the blossoming of hawthorn
The secret Iraq deal that bought Mandelson’s loyalty to Brown
John KampfnerJohn Kampfner unveils the ignominious truth about Sir John Chilcot’s Iraq inquiry and reveals Peter Mandelson’s demand, when Brown’s future hung in the balance in early June, that the hearings be held in private. Even now Mandelson’s priority is to protect Brand Blair
Where is the Arthur Seldon for our own era?
Colin RobinsonColin Robinson, biographer of the sage who so influenced Thatcherism, says that Seldon has no counterpart now — the Tory party is no longer receptive to such challenging ideas
Scott B.
February 19th, 2008 1:04pm"It is one of the bizarre paradoxes of modern liberalism that those who trumpet their concern for the vulnerable should actually be such noisy supporters of criminals, the nastiest and most aggressive people in our society." Not that paradoxical when you consider that for the bleeding-heart liberal, a ‘victim’ is a social outsider, someone who is discriminated against by mainstream society', and who only liberals are compassionate enough to care for and minister to. When it comes to ordinary decent members of that society being genuinely victimised by a member of the supposed victim-group, then where’s the moral preening to be had in that?