> What's the reason for allowing judges to remove jurors who admit their intent to acquit a guilty defendant? Arguably, the same reason judges should be allowe

> What's the reason for allowing judges to remove jurors who admit their intent to acquit a guilty defendant? Arguably, the same reason judges should be allowed to remove jurors who admit their intent to convict an innocent defendant: jurors must apply the law impartially. The LII has a pretty decent primer on all this entails[1]. And almost all state laws require a jury to unanimously vote to convict, so empaneling a jury that has someone who will always acquit means that the jury's decision has been set from the beginning. Personally, I live in a state that requires a unanimous vote to convict or acquit, and prohibits the judge from "poking at" a deadlocked jury[2]. In the few times I've been selected for a jury I haven't gone far enough to be asked if I would be impartial, and I'm glad because I've yet to decide where my personal ethics take me. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/impartial-jury https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/i... [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/allen_charge https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/allen_charge