The jury trial is one of the handful of democratic institutions that allow individual citizens, rather than the government, to make important societal decisions. A crucial component of the jury trial, at least in serious criminal cases, is the rule that verdicts be unanimous among the jurors (usually twelve in number). Under so that one or even two dissenting jurors will not be able to force a retrial.
But the material costs of hung juries do not warrant losing the benefit to society of the unanimous verdict. Statistically, jury trials are relatively rare; the vast majority of defendants do not have the option of a jury trial or elect to have a trial without a jury—or they plead guilty to may sometimes lead to inconclusive outcomes, a hung jury is certainly preferable to an unjust verdict.
Requiring unanimity provides a better chance that a trial, and thus a verdict, will be fair. Innocent people are already occasionally convicted—perhaps in some cases because jurors presume that anyone who has been brought to trial is probably guilty—and eliminating the unanimity requirement would only increase the opportunity for such mistakes. Furthermore, dismissed out of hand, society’s confidence that a proper verdict has been reached would be undermined.
What this question is testing
Topic
The author is taking a side in an argument: should we keep requiring all 12 jurors to agree before a serious criminal verdict, or relax that?
Framework
Present Debate. The author lays out the critics' position and then argues against it.
Main Point
The simpler version: yes, requiring all 12 jurors to agree sometimes leads to hung juries and retrials, which are annoying. But the alternative is a system that's much more willing to convict innocent people. The author thinks the cost of unanimity is small and the benefit is huge — fewer wrongful convictions and more public trust in verdicts.
P1: The critics' complaint
Critics call unanimity a costly relic. One stubborn juror can blow up a verdict.
P2: First defense — the costs really are small
Hung juries are rare to begin with, and when they happen, the case is usually genuinely close. A hung jury isn't a failure — it's the system being honest about its uncertainty. And it's far better than getting it wrong.
P3: Second defense — fairness needs unanimity
Innocent people already get convicted sometimes. Loosen the rule and you get more of that. Real deliberation only happens when one juror's doubts can't just be brushed aside, and a verdict only represents the whole jury when everyone genuinely signs on.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.