|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 04:29 PM EDT |
There are probably 2 reasons.
(1) Juries, like any group, tend towards group-think - so
having any single person refuse to agree is probably a good
predictor that there is something wrong with the verdict.
(2) Our court system, like our government, is designed to be
weak in cases of reasonable disagreement. The presumption
is that it is better to reach no verdict than an arguable
one.
I'm actually fine with this. We execute enough innocent
people with this system in any case.
It can potentially waste a lot of money in non-slam-dunk
cases, but it at least avoids granting the power of the law
to incorrect rulings.
--Erwin[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: StormReaver on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 04:57 PM EDT |
"But why?!"
As a safeguard against punishing an innocent person/company.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 08:18 PM EDT |
As we've seen, the questions are always along the line of:
Has the
plaintiff proved X: Yes or No
I wouldn't at all be surprised if the rule
for unanimous was put in place for the simple reason:
If not everyone is in
agreement that the plaintiff has proved her/his case, then there is sufficient
doubt of innocence.
In short:
Err on the side of innocence rather than
on the side of guilt!
For some of us, the greater crime is to
convict
an innocent party and let the guilty part go free
then to
let the
guilty party go free
That's how I view it:
If I can't answer yes, the
default must be no!
Trouble is: I can't be sure if that's also how the
Judges view it. I haven't seen anyone ask for specific clarification on that
point. For all I know, it's supposed to be:
Has Plaintiff proved X? Yes {-
can't say
Has Plaintiff proved X? No {- can't say
Since I
can't say yes or no for sure, I must be a hung Juror.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Hung Juror - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 08:28 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
I have been a juror a number of times, with the experience spanning three
states. The last time was very instructive. We had votes of 7-5, 9-3, 11-1,
then 7-5 to convict in our deliberations. After the 11-1 vote there was
substantial pressure for the holdout to give in. It was decided it would be
best for everyone to sleep on the question and come back in the morning. As
the last vote count suggests, with time to think about it, 4 of the jurors
(including myself) decided the holdout was correct. We eventually had a hung
jury.
The core issue was that different jurors formed different evaluations about
which witness was trustworthy and believable.
I must say that I was quite edified by the experience. All of the jurors took
their responsibility very seriously. We felt bound to follow the law even when
it was at odds with our feelings about the parties.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
