2006-12-18 12:33:42 · 10 answers · asked by MRS A R 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
That is not invariably true even in the USA; the parties may agree to a majority vote. Without consent, a single holdout among jury members may result in a mistrial. The accused may then be re-tried.
In Britain conviction by majority vote is quite common and recgnized in law without requiring consent of the parties.
2006-12-18 12:48:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bcuz 12 brains are supposedly better than one.
Consider the scenario that you are on trial for murder. Would you want just 1 person's opinion, however jaded or one-sided it may be?
In this forum, liberals actually have somewhat of a purpose. We don't want to send the innocent to the clink, so 12 jurors are put in place as a "checks n balances" deal. Bouncing theories off of each other, trying to come to a unanimous vote. When someone's life hangs in the balance, whether it's a death sentence or life in prison, you need more than one brain thinkin things out.
If there is even a shadow of a doubt that a person did what they are accused of, you just cannot convict. It's that simple.
2006-12-18 20:39:50 · answer #2 · answered by hjfr27 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some really great answers already. I would just like to add that the term "shadow of a doubt" is completely wrong.
The courts instruct jurors that if they have "reasonable doubt" then they must not convict.
"Reasonable Doubt" means that if a reasonable person can believe the person might be innocent, then the person must not be convicted. Meaning no arguing that "aliens did it" or that you were under "mind control" or any other farfetched tale a defendent might think up.
And no, not all trials require a unanimous vote.
2006-12-18 20:46:29 · answer #3 · answered by chocolahoma 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The constitution does not require unanimity in all cases. Some juries are with 12 jurors, other juries can be 6. In the case of 12 jurors there need not be unanimity. It all depends on the particular state in which the court sits.
2006-12-18 23:48:10 · answer #4 · answered by John D 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To be fair, usually any trial is skewed in the prosecuter favour. In latter years, it was worse. So a) it gives the defendant more of an even playing Field and b)If suppose the defence had tampered with one juror? A show of hands will make it clear their was only one hold out, so if the out come is suspicious, they can question the die hard and decide if she could give reasons to cast vote one way, opposed to the eleven others. From true conviction in heart, caroused, or greed(as in was or about to be paid.) Then the Judge can take whatever appropriate action(s).
2006-12-18 20:49:16 · answer #5 · answered by mary57whalen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's how our system works, a unanimous decision by twelve people gives you a better chance of an unbiased decision based on facts allowed by the judge (in theory anyways, but the lawyer, defense and judge can pre-determine the outcome just by screening the juror candidates or browbeating rogue jurors into complicity).
2006-12-18 20:37:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
When someone is convicted the courts must be 100% sure that that person has commited a crime.
2006-12-18 20:51:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's not necessarily true. The Supreme Court of the US has upheld verdicts that are not unanimous and many states do not require them unless they are death penalty cases.
2006-12-18 20:36:27 · answer #8 · answered by Another Garcia 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The basic version: If someone is going to be sent to jail for life or possibly even executed, they deserve a jury that was sure of its decision.
2006-12-18 21:07:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
because there cannot be a shadow of a doubt.
2006-12-18 20:35:36 · answer #10 · answered by K. D. M. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋