Jury: Unanimity vs Supermajority Verdict

[LSJ]

Unanimous verdict generally being 12 of 12 agreeing on the verdict, while super majority is 10-2 or 11-1.

This is a common issue hotly discussed around the world by those in the government and legal professions, and of course by everyone else as we can all be affected by it.

Which is the better choice, and why? (advantages, disadvantages)

Some stuff you might wanna read (getting more)

A hung jury is a jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after an extended period of deliberation and is deadlocked with irreconcilable differences of opinion.[1]

In the United States, the result is a mistrial, and the case may be retried. Some jurisdictions permit the court to give the jury a so-called Allen charge, inviting the dissenting jurors to re-examine their opinions, as a last ditch effort to prevent the jury from hanging.

Juries in criminal cases are generally required to reach a unanimous verdict, while juries in civil cases typically have to reach some set level of majority consensus short of unanimity. In jurisdictions giving the litigants a choice of jury size (such as between a six-person and twelve-person jury), defense counsel in both civil and criminal cases frequently opt for the larger number of jurors. A hung jury is generally regarded as the next best thing to an acquittal, so the larger size of the jury increases the chances of dissension. A common axiom in criminal cases is that "it takes only one to hang," referring to the fact that, in some cases, a single juror can defeat the necessary unanimity.

One proposal for dealing with the difficulties associated with hung juries has been to introduce supermajority verdicts. This measure would allow juries to convict defendants without unanimous agreements amongst the jurors. Hence, a 12-member jury that would otherwise be deadlocked at 11 for conviction and 1 against, would be recorded as a guilty verdict for the defendant. The rationale for majority verdicts usually includes arguments involving so-called 'rogue jurors' who unreasonably impede the course of justice. Opponents of the introduction of majority verdicts argue that it undermines public confidence in criminal justice systems and results in a higher number of individuals convicted of crimes they did not commit.

In England a majority of 10-2 is needed for a verdict, failure to reach this may lead to a retrial.

In Scotland in criminal cases juries consist of 15, and 8 jurors are needed to arrive at a guilty verdict, even if the size of the jury drops below 15 e.g. because of illness. It is not possible to have a hung jury since if this number is not reached it is treated as an acquittal.

There's this one I keep coming across about the issue in New South Wales

And this thing has a lot of substance to it, again, from New South Wales. If you want to skim through that

[Denny Crane!]

Do you have any sources or material related to this issue?

Secondely lets posit the concept of removing the idea of being tried by your peers, get rid of the jury concept altogether.

[LSJ]

I have some stuff that would be good to read, added above.

[Sleeper]

Juries are a failed concept. Britain will have gotten rid of them within the quarter century.

[boofhead]

Imagine being railroaded by corrupt cops, and then being judged by semi-toothed hicks who think they are so important because the decision made about you is the greatest they've ever made..........

[Tiwaz]

Weell... Most of Europe actually, and I think most of world too, uses system which has no juries spoken in the OP so I guess I'll vote for not existing "kick out the juries"-option.

I simply cannot see myself happy to be put to mercy of dozen average people who most likely have little to no idea on what whole thing is about and who are more likely to let emotions interfere in matter where none should be present. Possibly to level where emotions overrule evidence.

[Sleeper]

Boof. The United States Police Forces are some of if not the least corrupt in the world.

[boofhead]

Boof. The United States Police Forces are some of if not the least corrupt in the world.

Cool. The"USPF" . US law means nothing to me. Keep it in your own streets.

[Sleeper]

US law means nothing to me.

Is there another kind?

[boofhead]

Is there another kind?

You sound like a recently suspended member.

Yes, of course there is 'another kind'. The cops of your own place, which may happen not to be the US.

[Sleeper]

I meant another kind of law. Of course there are corrupt cops outside America. That's why America has so much work to do. Bringing the idea of democracy to the world, even when it bites us in the ass.

[boofhead]

I meant another kind of law. Of course there are corrupt cops outside America. That's why America has so much work to do. Bringing the idea of democracy to the world, even when it bites us in the ass.

You aren't the protectors or the originators of democracy. You fool yourself. You are the recipients of it.

[Sleeper]

Do I? How many nations has the US brought democracy, even if it is failed democracy. All ideas are from a time before, it is how one uses them that counts.

Who are the protectors of democracy then?
Who are the originators for that matter?

The US invented modern Secular Democracy. Look it up.

[boofhead]

Do I? How many nations has the US brought democracy, even if it is failed democracy. All ideas are from a time before, it is how one uses them that counts.

Who are the protectors of democracy then?
Who are the originators for that matter?

The US invented modern Secular Democracy. Look it up.

Shoosh. Do some reading.

[Sleeper]

Shoosh. Do some reading.

Good answer. Similar to saying, well, nothing.

[boofhead]

OK sleeper, I have something to do now, but please explain to me the nations the US has brought to democracy.

[Sleeper]

OK sleeper, I have something to do now, but please explain to me the nations the US has brought to democracy.

Well, after WW2, we brought democracy back to a little place called Continental Europe. Later, we gave it to Russia until Tsar Putin. The idea of secular democracy is a direct result of having to deal with US companies, US aid and the global economy the US deserves the most credit for creating. If you want a more comprehensive answer, I asked you questions first.

[boofhead]

Well, after WW2, we brought democracy back to a little place called Continental Europe. Later, we gave it to Russia until Tsar Putin. The idea of secular democracy is a direct result of having to deal with US companies, US aid and the global economy the US deserves the most credit for creating. If you want a more comprehensive answer, I asked you questions first.

So. Name a single, sovereign nation.

[Tiwaz]

So. Name a single, sovereign nation.

He claims basically whole Europe *snicker*, along with Russia...

I guess his logic is that if USA can be at all connected to anything, any benefits are direct results of US connection.

There are no other explanations, USA is the reason.

Sheesh.
Saves a lot of time and energy to just forget Sleeper exists.

By the way, I do not recall Athens having religion running it's democracy nor Rome having religion running it's republic.

Wouldn't that make them first secular democracy and republic in history?
After all, this "source" of secularism (USA) does pay homage to judeo-christian religion just as eagerly as Rome or Greece to their deities.

[Farnan]

By the way, I do not recall Athens having religion running it's democracy nor Rome having religion running it's republic.

Wouldn't that make them first secular democracy and republic in history?
After all, this "source" of secularism (USA) does pay homage to judeo-christian religion just as eagerly as Rome or Greece to their deities.

Umm... Rome was anything but a secular Republic. The Pontifex Maximus was both a religious and civil position, the status of the Patricians was due to the state religion (they were the "original" founding families according to the founding myths), and the State controlled religion to a great deal.

Athens was less so than Rome, but the State had control in religion.

There is much less involvement in government in the US than in Athens or Rome. Furthermore this is far less in the US than many people want to believe.