Replacing unanimous verdicts with majority verdicts can enhance the efficiency of the judicial process, reducing the time and resources required for trials. It also acknowledges the reality that reaching a unanimous decision can be difficult, sometimes leading to hung juries and retrials. Majority verdicts can promote more diverse perspectives within juries and help ensure that justice is served more consistently and expediently. Additionally, they can alleviate the pressure on jurors, encouraging more open deliberation and discussion.
Many-most states have provisions whereby 'majority' verdicts are acceptable in minor (misdemeanor or traffic) trials, or they allow for juries of less than 12 jurors. Most(all?) still require full 12 member juries to hear felony cases.
There are a few countries that allow a majority rule by a jury. These countries are, Hong Kong, France, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, and Norway.
The Wright Verdicts - 1995 is rated/received certificates of: Australia:M
That's it! There are no other verdicts. Guilty or Not Guilty is the only choice.
The Wright Verdicts - 1995 was released on: USA: 31 March 1995
They are called VERDICTS.
majority verdict The verdict of a jury reached by a majority. The verdict need not be unanimous if there are no fewer than 11 jurors and 10 of them agree on the verdict or if there are 10 jurors and 9 of them agree on the verdict
The requirement for jury verdicts to be unanimous is a fundamental aspect of the justice system. Some argue that unanimity ensures fair and just decisions, as it reflects the collective agreement of all jurors. Others believe that allowing for non-unanimous verdicts could lead to quicker resolutions and prevent hung juries. Ultimately, the decision on whether jury verdicts should be unanimous or not depends on the balance between ensuring justice and efficiency in the legal process.
Trial Juries
"guilty" or "not guilty".
Guilty or Not Guilty.