Wacky Wednesday--Juries Shouldn't Have To Be Unanimous

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

--Very few decisions of great importance in life require a unanimous verdict. Congressional votes don’t. Judicial votes don’t, including the Supreme Court, which is often split narrowly 5-4. American Idol votes don’t. Elections certainly don’t. And more to the point, we don’t require this in civil trials to dispose of property.

--Unanimity means that one single person who refuses to see things the obvious and necessary way can prevent a society from doing what’s necessary.

--Why should one lone citizen have the veto power in a jury room?

--Finding someone “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” is one thing, but requiring that 12 people ALL find to that level is ridiculously high. What if eleven people found to that level? Wouldn’t that be enough?

--How clogged is our court system because of the extra time of jury deliberations?

--How much more burdensome does the process of deliberation become when this is an issue?

--We’re one of the only countries around the world that has this requirement. (Only Canada and a few locales in Australia among modern countries do).

--It prevents both conviction and acquittal, so the assumption that it’s in a defendant’s best interest isn’t quite right.

--Juries used to represent a fairly homogenous population who were far more likely to agree because of shared values, background, and demographics. Modern diversity makes unanimity that much more difficult.

--Research shows that outcomes don’t change a lot when you remove this requirement. So it’s not a major thing anyhow.

--Holdouts have a high incentive to cave under peer pressure. So 12-0 isn’t always true. 10-2 would better represent the real level of consensus because there’s no incentive to shift for any reason other than persuadedness.

--A second trial doesn’t solve anything since, even if it convicts, you still don’t have unanimity. You only have unanimity of the second group, but put together the numbers may well be 22-2 or something.

--Hung juries invalidate the entire first trial, something which should be avoided at least as vigorously as false verdicts.

--The lone holdout of 12 Angry Men is extremely rare.

Resources:
Ten Angry Men? (Findlaw)
Juror unanimity reconsidered (Freakonomics, cached)

Third hung jury for Daniel Renteria (Defense counsel's blog)