A jury decision has to be unanimous in criminal cases
only, not civil cases. In a criminal case, depending on the charge, we are talking
about the ability of the State to take away someone's freedom or even to put them to
death. This means the burden of proof is on the
State.
Proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then,
is the threshold, and this is why criminal trials should reach a unanimous verdict.
Many times, including on juries I have been on, the accused was most likely guilty, but
the case is weak or the evidence lacking, and the system, as we have designed it,
protects those we cannot prove are guilty, even if they might
be.
I like this protection. Juries are made up of human
beings and human beings are fallible and act emotionally. They are imperfect, and the
only guard I have against this imperfection is that all 12 jurors be convinced of guilt
or innocence in order for a verdict to be determined.
On
the other hand, this is a very inefficient system. Twelve impartial jurors are hard to
find in many cases, and there is a significant cost to society when these juries cannot
reach a unanimous verdict, as they have to be tried again at additional cost, or let go
to potentially commit crimes against society once again.
No comments:
Post a Comment