TITLE:
11 Angry, Tired, and Increasingly Confused Men
VALIDITY:
Courts and juries legal, Democracy
DESCRIPTION:
A recent high-profile murder case has been tied up in court for months because 11 of 12 jurors wanted to deliver a Guilty verdict, but the Judge's interpretation of some rather complex and archaic law is that a unanimous verdict is needed in this instance. Now, many are asking you for clarity as to the numbers needed for a jury verdict.
OPTION 1
"It's called democracy, dumbasses," rages head juror @@randomname@@, to the applause of five other jurors who seem enraptured by @@HIS@@ force of personality. "Forget 12 out of 12, or even 11 out of 12. In any jury, the majority vote should be carried. Only an exact split of six against six should require any further deliberation."
OUTCOME:
the courts operate on a principle of "probably did it" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt"
OPTION 2
"What's the hurry to get home here?" asks unemployed actor and lone juror @@randomname@@, helping himself to the juror's buffet, and shuffling around comfortably in hotel slippers. "Unanimity is a safeguard against wrongful convictions, and is essential to proper justice. If a mere twelve people can't agree, then how can we say that an argument is sufficiently convincing? We should always demand jury unanimity. Hey, can I get a drink, please?"
OUTCOME:
the Mob only needs to corrupt one juror in twelve to escape justice
OPTION 3
"This isn't really the business of government," interjects Judge @@randomname@@, trying to eject you from the room. "You have an accredited legal profession, including expert judges like myself. We'll interpret the law according to our learned opinions, and then let you know exactly when a case needs unanimity, a supermajority, a majority, or indeed, if a jury is needed at all. Government must not interfere with the independent operation of the judicial legislature!"
OUTCOME:
most judges believe that juries should be seen but not heard
DRAFT 2 20.9.19:
DRAFT 1: