In the 1957 film Twelve Angry Men, a fictional holdout juror, played by Henry Fonda, stands alone against eleven others, who are certain of the defendant's guilt.

Fonda's character, Davis endures mockery, isolation and physical threats, but he doesn't only refuse to budge, he also takes it upon himself to prove, by objective evidence, that the defendant could not have committed the murder of which he was accused.

Davis was a hero because the defendant was innocent. Justice prevails. A powerful message is sent. Stick by your guns and don't give in to the majority. For decades, screenwriter Reginald Rose's courtroom drama has been cherished as a homage to the US jury system.

But what if it had turned out that the fictional defendant did it and went free only to kill again? Would Davis be the villain?

Mistakes are inevitable in our imperfect jury system. No one individual or group can ever credibly claim infallibility.

The real question is: which mistake is worse; convicting the innocent or freeing the guilty?

The US jury system clearly and properly errs on the side of never convicting the innocent, but that system is being tested today.

The sole holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy murder case has now identified himself as Michael P Desronvil. He alone voted to reject Clancy's insanity defense and advocated for a guilty verdict.

As a result, he was first demonized by Clancy's excellent lawyer and then subjected to much public opprobrium, including threats.

The jurors in this case who have spoken to the media have painted very different pictures about the deliberations.

Those in the majority claim that Desronvil refused to follow the judge's instruction. He denies this, saying he believed that Clancy was not insane.

We will never know what actually occurred in the jury room because jury deliberations are not recorded and the memories of jurors differ, depending on their perspectives. But the issue is not who's right or who's wrong.

Even assuming that Desronvil was wrong about his belief in Clancy's guilt, he surely had the right to hold such a belief. This is not a case of racial or other invidious discrimination against a defendant. It is a case of reasonable disagreement on the merits.

The issues here are even more complicated in insanity defense cases, like Clancy, where the defendant admits she killed her three children and that what she did is horrendous beyond belief. But she blames her crime on her mental illness – in that case postpartum psychosis.

Of course, most women with postpartum psychosis do not kill their children, so the illness alone does not necessarily explain her actions. But nor can her actions be fully understood without considering her serious illness.

But reasonable people, including reasonable jurors, can disagree about the proper outcome in the Clancy case. The public is deeply divided about the case, so it should come as no surprise that there was division in the jury room as well.

Under the judge's instructions, Desronvil was obliged to maintain his view after considering the views of the other jurors.

The issue is whether he should be demonized for holding out. The implications of such public denunciation are dangerous to our jury system.

The public demonization of Desronvil may well discourage other holdout jurors, especially those who hold unpopular views and, in our society, that means mostly jurors who are holding out for innocence against the majority who favor guilt.

If dissenting jurors are intimidated into parroting the majority position, more innocent people will be sent to prison.

Jurors must be free to stand alone, either for innocence or guilt, without fear of public demonization, or worse.

For these reasons Michael P Desronvil must be vocally defended for his willingness to hold out, even by those who may disagree with him on the merits.

He must be protected against any negative consequences. More importantly, future jurors must be assured that if they disagree with the majority, they will not be subject to public identification and demonizations.

I'm sure that Desronvil did not want his identity revealed. He ultimately decided to expose himself in anticipation of the inevitability of it coming out.

We must do more to protect the integrity and independence of holdout jurors. Our jury system depends on the willingness of every juror to act on principles, not pressures.