Jury verdicts should be unanimous

Answer 1

i have an opinion answer for each side...

should be majority

Juries should not have to reach a unanimous vote to reach their decision. Having a compulsory unanimous vote can cause many problems. People will always have different opinions as everyone has a different personality, and so will not always agree. People also have all different views these can be caused by their upbringing, religion, lifestyle, career, in fact any aspect of their lives. This means that they simply will not believe the same things as others and not always the correct verdict of a case. However, if there is a majority vote given from a jury it will mean that the verdict is the most correct decision that can be made. Another reason for a majority vote is that evidence given in a case is never totally clear; people can lie and evidence can be tampered with or simply unclear in itself. And so in some cases people can simply never be truly positive for a verdict. But when people come together they can decide by opinion, again, the most correct answer. And so majority may be as close as you can get in many cases, if unanimous votes are compulsory and people just keep trying to gain a positive decision for the outcome it will often just cause more trauma for the people involved, cost more money from the government and country and keep criminals out of jail living the lives they no longer deserve for years more than necessary.

Should be unanimous

It is important for juries to have a unanimous vote because it forces each member to really focus on the case and they have to know what they re talking about because the outcome of the case truly depends on each decision of each individual. So if the outcome of the case is an unclear decision to the jury the case will be forced to continue until it is clear. This keeps things so that a person is very fairly tried and the jury will not be fairly sure but absolutely positive and so have the fair right to claim that an individual is guilty or not. When deciding on something that will possibly effect or ruin a person's entire life it cannot be a vague decision. If there are one or two people in the jury disagreeing with the verdict this only proves that there are some aspects of the case saying that the opinions of the other jury members are not necessarily correct, and therefore the rest of the case should definitely be reconsidered. This may cost the country more money but it is surely a small price to pay when taking away the life of an innocent person or discovering that someone is really guilty.

hope it helped(:

Answer 2

There are arguments for both unanimous and majority verdicts in jury trials. Proponents of unanimous verdicts argue that it ensures a higher degree of certainty and fairness in the decision-making process. However, others argue that unanimous verdicts can lead to hung juries and mistrials, and that a majority verdict could allow for a more efficient resolution of cases. Ultimately, the choice between unanimous and majority verdicts depends on the specific legal system and the values it seeks to uphold.