This sounds like legally it would make things even harder. At the moment, in principle you are only convicted if you guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt". That

This sounds like legally it would make things even harder. At the moment, in principle you are only convicted if you guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt". That already has to be done by a jury. How do we decide if someone is "universally agreed upon" to be guilty? Bigger jury? Also, it would be weird to have a jury say "This person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but not universally agreed upon".