Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous juries

Re:Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous... by qwerty456127 on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @08:56AM (#22934508)

Can somebody explain how is this a good thing? Whenever nobody in a group has a different opinion on a serious subject that always seems extremely suspicious to me. Communist commissions used to vote this way traditionally.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous... by aka1234 on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @09:12AM (#22934629)

> "Whenever nobody in a group has a different opinion on a serious subject that always seems extremely suspicious to me."

With a criminal conviction we're talking about exercising the state's monopoly on violence and coercing an individual to give up their liberty and freedom.

There shouldn't be a differing opinion on guilt. If there is, the state hasn't proven the subject's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt, the person should be found not guilty.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous... by qwerty456127 on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @09:15AM (#22934649)

Is it possible to prove somebody guilty with 100% confidence at all? I doubt anything beyond the realm of mathematical formulae can be proven with 100% confidence.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous... by jaredmosley on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @09:39AM (#22934844)

No, that's why it is "beyond a reasonable doubt". A guilty conviction is not proving someone guilty, it is saying that your peers have no reason to doubt your guilt.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court says criminal convictions require unanimous... by jaywalk on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @10:34AM (#22935271)

I hope you have the opportunity to serve on a jury for a meaningful case one day. I did, and it really opened my eyes.

It was a young man being charged with a list of crimes, the most serious being negligent homicide. I went into it thinking "oh boy, this kid must be guilty" and by the end, I wished we had the ability to convict the prosecutor of negligence. The kid did nothing wrong.

But the initial vote was 11 to 1 not guilty. The one guilty was a retired guy, and to this day I believe he was just relishing having something to do because he kept us there for an extra day trying to convince him that the kid wasn't guilty. He didn't even have a good reason for the guilty vote either, which was the worst part. Eventually he relented and the kid went free.

The moral of my story is, having a different opinion isn't necessarily a good or useful thing on a jury.

[ Parent | on HN ]