Yeah, I was really shocked to read that.

Why though? Let's be real, juries are human and requiring a unanimous verdict will 90% of the time just mean that people that disagree with the majority will give in so that they get to go home.

There's no fundamental difference in justice, just minor differences in thresholds.

▲

maxbond 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Have you ever served on a jury? It's easy to get out of jury duty. The people who really don't want to be there, usually aren't. When I did grand jury, everyone wanted to be there and was very engaged. To me this is like saying people aren't interested in juicy gossip, having an opinion, debating the smallest details, and wielding power - that's not been my experience.

But the bigger problem is that, if the process were really so precarious, then that's exactly why we would want stronger controls. There may be a good argument for a different threshold but it isn't this one.

▲

mkehrt 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's correct. We shouldn't be convicting people unless it's obvious.

	▲	cowlevel 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In the American system the 10 just convince the 2 to agree so they can all go home, and you just don't know how many actually agreed.
	▲	EliRivers 4 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Indeed. It is just a bit unfortunate that people often come to different, obvious conclusions.
	▲	IshKebab 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		How obvious though? Obvious enough for 3 random people to agree? 10? 100? You don't magically avoid a threshold just by saying "obvious".