Why does our court system have a jury be unanimous instead of a majority...maybe have more jurors and have 80%

Question

why does a jury have to totally agree guilty of innocent?...have an 80% verdict would be better...have more jurors and 11 out of 15 agree...why do we still have that old way of thinking in our court systems?...thanks

Answer 1

Because a guilty verdict is based on the prosecution proving guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" (NOT "without a shadow of a doubt").  Jurors are selected based on their likelihood to reflect a rational cross-section of the American public, thus if any one of them does not believe the defendant to be guilty then the prosecution has not proven their case "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Answer 2

Old way of thinking?????

Since when is a fair trial an old way of thinking?  I think you have a serious misunderstanding of what "beyond a reasonable doubt" actually means.  Besides, if the jury is not unanimous, the defendant gets a new trial with a new jury.  You don't get of jail free just because ONE person out of 12 does not have the balls to convict someone.

And that is often what happens.  Jurors are supposed to have the fortitude to pass judgement on someone, as distasteful as it might be.  But the reality is that some people find that a lot harder to do than they realized, even if they do feel the person is guilty.

Nor are juries a democracy.  Your job as a juror is to do justice...and justice is not served if even one person does not agree with the verdict.  On the other hand, can you imagine how many innocent people might be convicted if all a jury needed was a simple majority?

Answer 3

Because the Prosecution needs to prove 'without a shadow of a doubt' that you are guilty of a crime.  Our system is based on the principal that is better to let a thousand criminals go then to jail one innocent man.

EDIT-Civil cases are not guilty or innocent verdicts.

Answer 4

Not correct.  Depends on the state. Some courts only have to have a majority in a civil case