He says, if trials really require proof beyond reasonable doubt, there would seldom is ever be any question as to the result of a trial. It would be obvious to anyone who heard all the evidence.
Of course there is no certainty of a jury's decision.
So, Dawkins suggests, instead of having one jury of twelve for murder trials, have two juries of six. The two juries would not communicate with each other and a conviction would follow only if both came back with a guilty verdict.
There would be no material change in trial practice -- the only mechanical change would be to keep to two juries separate.
2 comments:
Sounds like an excellent idea.
Very good idea. We do a lot of testing of cases before trial using multiple juries and more often than not our test juries return in consistent verdicts. It is the nature of human nature and the process of jury selection and trial itself.
Louis Genevie, Ph.D.
CEO
www.LitStrat.com
Post a Comment