Poll of the Day > I think Jury Verdicts should be MAJORITY rule. Do you agree??

(+) Yeah! (+)

Remember now. Derek Chauvin has a greater chance of acquittal cause he has 2 chances..he wins either by 1 person dissenting from the verdict since it has to be unanimous or there's a mistrial when the jurors just can't agree on anything..

But do you think it should be majority rule? let's see what people think

https://i.imgur.com/jS4VV8D.png
---

What's the system called where it needs to be unanimous -1, like 1 person is able to vote against and it still goes through.

---

4th option: Jury trials should not be a thing.

---

I find duckbear guilty of having bad grammar, and making shitty topics. Life in prison.

---

It should be majority rule. Why should the few dictate the many?
Most people agree on lets do this and a couple of naysayers throw a whole wrench into everything? Sounds highly abusable, and corruptible... oh wait

---

It absolutely needs to remain unanimous. Under a majority rule system A LOT more innocent people would be convicted of crimes that they did not commit.

---

Mead posted...

It absolutely needs to remain unanimous. Under a majority rule system A LOT more innocent people would be convicted of crimes that they did not commit.

---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

4th option: Jury trials should not be a thing.

---

Majority rule doesn't really address the racism inherent in the system, it just makes it more likely to incarcerate people.

And over incarceration is already one of the largest issues in the US.

---

No, because simple majority just makes it that much easier to wrongfully convict people and I have to suspect the motives of any person would want to implement a change that would drastically increase the number of wrongful convictions in a nation with too many fucking wrongful convictions.

Full Throttle posted... I think death penalty verdicts should be unanimous but everything else like prison sentences should be majority rule

The US shouldn't have a fucking death penalty anyway, excluding maybe in cases where the individual in question represents a continued danger even after his imprisonment.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

4th option: Jury trials should not be a thing.

First, defendants generally have the choice to have a trial by judge instead of jury. Second, and more importantly, trial by juries exist PRECISELY because of a long history of abuse when it was trial by judge. It was specifically put into the Constitution to counter corruption. There's a very fucking good reason why juries are a thing.

---

Gonna be fun to see the chaos after he's let off the hook for MURDERING someone in broad daylight because of our broken justice system. There's going to be mass riots, and they will be absolutely justified.

---

Simple majority is way too far. It should require overwhelming support for guilt among the jury to convict someone. However...

I do think on a jury of 12, it should require at least 2 dissenters to avoid a guilty verdict, though.

If you're outnumbered 11 to 1 in your view of the trial, the burden should be on you to convince even just one other person to join you. Not the other way around.
Have at least a small modicum of security against one rogue juror ruining shit in trials where the person is clearly guilty. Mandating 100% concurrence is such an obvious recipe for disaster.

12 Angry Men wouldn't have been written if majority rule were a thing :(

streamofthesky posted...

Simple majority is way too far. It should require overwhelming support for guilt among the jury to convict someone. However...

I do think on a jury of 12, it should require at least 2 dissenters to avoid a guilty verdict, though.

If you're outnumbered 11 to 1 in your view of the trial, the burden should be on you to convince even just one other person to join you. Not the other way around.
Have at least a small modicum of security against one rogue juror ruining shit in trials where the person is clearly guilty. Mandating 100% concurrence is such an obvious recipe for disaster.

Agreed

---

yeah a plain majority no but an overwhelming one I think is fair

---

If you think corruption in government is bad now, majority rulings would lead to waaay more

---

Mead posted...

It absolutely needs to remain unanimous. Under a majority rule system A LOT more innocent people would be convicted of crimes that they did not commit.

---

We don't need more people in prison.

---

Zeus posted...

Second, and more importantly, trial by juries exist PRECISELY because of a long history of abuse when it was trial by judge. It was specifically put into the Constitution to counter corruption. There's a very fucking good reason why juries are a thing.

There must be better ways to counter corruption than the logistical nightmare of layman juries.

---

streamofthesky posted...

Simple majority is way too far. It should require overwhelming support for guilt among the jury to convict someone. However...

I do think on a jury of 12, it should require at least 2 dissenters to avoid a guilty verdict, though.

If you're outnumbered 11 to 1 in your view of the trial, the burden should be on you to convince even just one other person to join you. Not the other way around.
Have at least a small modicum of security against one rogue juror ruining shit in trials where the person is clearly guilty. Mandating 100% concurrence is such an obvious recipe for disaster.

ITP: "I'm fine with massively increasing the chances of the innocent going to prison if it even slightly improves the odds of convicting somebody I dislike."

Nichtcrawler X posted...

There must be better ways to counter corruption than the logistical nightmare of layman juries.

Given the prejudices of judges and how difficult it can be to disbar offenders, it beats the nightmare of relying on judges. Jury duty is a massive inconvenience and I don't necessarily trust a jury to decide somebody's fate, but many of the complaints around juries also apply to judges (even including, in some cases, knowledge of the law) and the innocent are far more likely to be convicted under a judge who is generally going to side with the prosecutors, cops, etc, with whom he has a personal relationship. By promoting judge trials, you're basically creating a pipeline to prison for anybody unlucky enough to be accused of a crime, whether or not they actually did it.

---

Zeus posted...

ITP: "I'm fine with massively increasing the chances of the innocent going to prison if it even slightly improves the odds of convicting somebody I dislike."

"Massively"

Needing 11/12 to convict is still over 90%, it's not like it's going to make a major difference in the number of innocent people going to jail. Most of those cases it's b/c they were too poor to get proper legal representation and/or the prosecution straight up lied or concealed evidence from the defense. So those poor souls still go to jail, even w/ the current system.

I do agree w/ you it shouldn't be left up to judges, though. It's...disturbing how few if any requirements there are to actually become a judge and how tough it is to disbar one. I always assumed it was rigorous and merit-based, but it's more like a "good old boy" system...

Zeus posted...

the innocent are far more likely to be convicted under a judge who is generally going to side with the prosecutors, cops, etc, with whom he has a personal relationship. By promoting judge trials, you're basically creating a pipeline to prison for anybody unlucky enough to be accused of a crime, whether or not they actually did it.

I do not think the incarceration percentages reflect that.

---