5 ms·

Another way to look at it might be to ask why a jury is even needed. Why not just two jurors? If a simple majority is all it takes then why does it matter how m

Another way to look at it might be to ask why a jury is even needed. Why not just two jurors? If a simple majority is all it takes then why does it matter how many jurors there are so long as it is more than one. And if it isn't a simple majority then unanimity is the only resonable option. Whereas judges deliberate,issue opinions and sentences, jurors have no such mandate. A second way to look at it would be to consider that the accused has presumptiom of innocence,therefore the juror's purpose is to remove that presumption. If there is no unanimity then you're saying it is better to punish the guilty even if some innocents get punished in the process. If jurors represent society then one juror's opinion in a 10 person jury represents 10% of the population.

SllX 7y ago
When discussing common law, the answer invariably comes down to “tradition”. The English common law, which we inherited our own traditions from and much of which is still applicable today, is less a “law” in the sense of a set of decrees from a King or statutes passed by a parliamentary body and more a long line of traditions and community standards that change slightly over time according to a few principles, with the facts and circumstances of the time used to inform the judgement and sentencing. Without a legislative body, you could go on evolving the traditions over time to cover any number of new and unique circumstances simply by using the existing body of law as a guideline. So why 12 Jurors and why must they be unanimous? Because it is tradition, and the principle of stare decisis has kept it that way for a very long time. Can traditions change? Yes, but stare decisis makes it unlikely that any sort of arbitrary changes will be made and upheld. Think of it as the legal equivalent of inertia. The law stays the same given the same facts and circumstances unless changed by an outside force, usually a statute in modern democracies with common law legal systems. The upshot of all of this is to make the practice of law and process of legal proceedings more predictable and arbitration less arbitrary if you’ve done your homework and can tie your case to a previous case, and it doesn’t even necessarily have to be a case from the same jurisdiction if it’s from the same legal tradition and not incompatible with the existing body of law in the jurisdiction the case is within. In contrast, whenever the legislature passes a new Bill and it’s signed into law, you have to study how this will affect new cases going forward rather than simply being able to rely on past precedent. This allows more instantaneous changes to new circumstances but also allows more arbitrary laws to be passed whose effects on people and commerce are not well understood until they are used in litigation.
iso1631 7y ago
> And if it isn't a simple majority then unanimity is the only reasonable option That's not how the constitution works - supermajorities (55%, 2/3, 75%) exist in many areas around the world, so while majority and unanimity may be reasonable options, it's arguable that other points may also be reasonable.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  When it comes to voting on laws or elections yes, but criminal conviction not so much. It's not an opinion of what you think is better but certainty of guilt that you are voting on.
naasking 7y ago
> And if it isn't a simple majority then unanimity is the only resonable option. I don't see why it's the only reasonable option. Consider if we discover that 90% agreement has the exact same false conviction rate, but a much better true conviction rate. That would justify a 90% majority over unanimity. Maybe unanimity is maybe the only reasonable option when you don't have any other informatoin, but that bar can move once you have a better understanding of the phenomenon.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  I think this is one of those situations where statistics can't be applied because if you can't guarantee a 0% false positive rate, even one person being convicted wrongly can't be tolerated. It's not a question of which statistical measurement is better but which approach society is willig to accept.
  - naasking 7y ago
    > I think this is one of those situations where statistics can't be applied because if you can't guarantee a 0% false positive rate, even one person being convicted wrongly can't be tolerated. You can't guarantee a 0% false conviction rate even when requiring unanimity. That's why I said if the false conviction rate was the same, but the true conviction rate was better, clearly that's a better scenario.
    - badrabbit 7y ago
      You can't and you won't try to. You leave it to the quality of jurors in the locality,allow maximim number of jurors(practically limited) and unanimity. False conviction rate at 11/12 guilty verdict can be 90% in NYC and 40% in rural alabama for example and it can change ovet time based on population change. Someone needs to keep track of the stats, their methods will need oversight and what happens when bad politicians want high conviction rates, influence the stats measurement? Will be gerrymandering all over again.
- wonderwonder 7y ago
  Issue is that we don't have these numbers. People are consistently proven to have been innocent after serving decades in prison for crimes they did not commit but were convicted of. In addition, as only 2 states in the US allowed for a majority conviction, the data set would necessarily be small. Compounding that is that we essentially have no real way to determine who was guilty but found innocent as once you are found innocent that's generally the end of the road. The primary concern in this situation should be increasing the difficulty of convicting an innocent person. The guilty going free should be a secondary matter. So while I understand your point, as you stated, we have no other information and as such the numbers we would need to validate it simply don't and won't exist.

SllX 7y ago

When discussing common law, the answer invariably comes down to “tradition”. The English common law, which we inherited our own traditions from and much of which is still applicable today, is less a “law” in the sense of a set of decrees from a King or statutes passed by a parliamentary body and more a long line of traditions and community standards that change slightly over time according to a few principles, with the facts and circumstances of the time used to inform the judgement and sentencing. Without a legislative body, you could go on evolving the traditions over time to cover any number of new and unique circumstances simply by using the existing body of law as a guideline. So why 12 Jurors and why must they be unanimous? Because it is tradition, and the principle of stare decisis has kept it that way for a very long time. Can traditions change? Yes, but stare decisis makes it unlikely that any sort of arbitrary changes will be made and upheld. Think of it as the legal equivalent of inertia. The law stays the same given the same facts and circumstances unless changed by an outside force, usually a statute in modern democracies with common law legal systems. The upshot of all of this is to make the practice of law and process of legal proceedings more predictable and arbitration less arbitrary if you’ve done your homework and can tie your case to a previous case, and it doesn’t even necessarily have to be a case from the same jurisdiction if it’s from the same legal tradition and not incompatible with the existing body of law in the jurisdiction the case is within. In contrast, whenever the legislature passes a new Bill and it’s signed into law, you have to study how this will affect new cases going forward rather than simply being able to rely on past precedent. This allows more instantaneous changes to new circumstances but also allows more arbitrary laws to be passed whose effects on people and commerce are not well understood until they are used in litigation.

iso1631 7y ago

> And if it isn't a simple majority then unanimity is the only reasonable option That's not how the constitution works - supermajorities (55%, 2/3, 75%) exist in many areas around the world, so while majority and unanimity may be reasonable options, it's arguable that other points may also be reasonable.

badrabbit 7y ago
When it comes to voting on laws or elections yes, but criminal conviction not so much. It's not an opinion of what you think is better but certainty of guilt that you are voting on.

naasking 7y ago

> And if it isn't a simple majority then unanimity is the only resonable option. I don't see why it's the only reasonable option. Consider if we discover that 90% agreement has the exact same false conviction rate, but a much better true conviction rate. That would justify a 90% majority over unanimity. Maybe unanimity is maybe the only reasonable option when you don't have any other informatoin, but that bar can move once you have a better understanding of the phenomenon.

badrabbit 7y ago
I think this is one of those situations where statistics can't be applied because if you can't guarantee a 0% false positive rate, even one person being convicted wrongly can't be tolerated. It's not a question of which statistical measurement is better but which approach society is willig to accept.
- naasking 7y ago
  > I think this is one of those situations where statistics can't be applied because if you can't guarantee a 0% false positive rate, even one person being convicted wrongly can't be tolerated. You can't guarantee a 0% false conviction rate even when requiring unanimity. That's why I said if the false conviction rate was the same, but the true conviction rate was better, clearly that's a better scenario.
  - badrabbit 7y ago
    You can't and you won't try to. You leave it to the quality of jurors in the locality,allow maximim number of jurors(practically limited) and unanimity. False conviction rate at 11/12 guilty verdict can be 90% in NYC and 40% in rural alabama for example and it can change ovet time based on population change. Someone needs to keep track of the stats, their methods will need oversight and what happens when bad politicians want high conviction rates, influence the stats measurement? Will be gerrymandering all over again.
wonderwonder 7y ago
Issue is that we don't have these numbers. People are consistently proven to have been innocent after serving decades in prison for crimes they did not commit but were convicted of. In addition, as only 2 states in the US allowed for a majority conviction, the data set would necessarily be small. Compounding that is that we essentially have no real way to determine who was guilty but found innocent as once you are found innocent that's generally the end of the road. The primary concern in this situation should be increasing the difficulty of convicting an innocent person. The guilty going free should be a secondary matter. So while I understand your point, as you stated, we have no other information and as such the numbers we would need to validate it simply don't and won't exist.