Why did the Blagojevich trial need unanimous?

[Rick]

Hi,

Why did the Blagojevich trial need the jury to reach a unanimous
decision for each count? With unanimous decision is almost impossible
to convict! Wouldn't it be fairer 50%+ or 70%+ ?

Thanks in advance,

Rick

[spenser drummond]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:27:54 -0700 (PDT), Rick

Post by Rick
Hi,

Hi.

Post by Rick
Why did the Blagojevich trial need the jury to reach a unanimous
decision for each count?

Because that is what applicable law requires. Its a rule .... like
whether to drive on the left or right side of the road .... or like
the rule that U.S. federal income tax returns have to be filed on Apr.
15 or an extension applied for by then .... or the baseball rule, 3
stikes and yer out!

Post by Rick
With unanimous decision is almost impossible
to convict!

This is ridiculous. More to the point here, it is belied by huge
amounts of experince at the state and federal level in the U.S.
Almost all criminal cases that are tried before a jury result in a
unanimous verdict, usually of guilt.

Post by Rick
Wouldn't it be fairer 50%+ or 70%+ ?

Why not just do a Gallup or Rasmussen poll? Or ask Hannity or BillO?
Or hold a lynchin' party? Or flip a coin or roll the dice? But no
one can answer your question about what would be fairer without
knowing what you think fairer means in this context. Unless of course
you are not asking a question at all and just want to bleat without
explanation: 50%+ or 70%+ would be fairer.

Post by Rick
Thanks in advance,

You are welcome.

[McGyver]

Post by Rick
Hi,
Why did the Blagojevich trial need the jury to reach a unanimous
decision for each count? With unanimous decision is almost impossible
to convict! Wouldn't it be fairer 50%+ or 70%+ ?

First, your wrong about it being almost impossible to convict. The opposite
is true. Most criminal trials end in conviction if they proceed to a jury
conclusion. There are several reasons, but the biggest is that the
prosecutors get to select the cases that go to trial. They won't select any
that have significant risk of losing, except in cases where they have
publicity pressure.

The primary reason we use juries, and the reason we require unanimity, is
historical. Our constitutional drafters had years of experience with a
government form (British monarchy) in which the government's accusation
against a person resulted in conviction and punishment, including prison,
forfeiture and death. The number of innocent people suffering those
punishments, in the personal experience of the drafters, was so high that
the drafters saw the jury as the most important protection standing between
the government and the people. The rule requiring unanimity is the best we
can do to insure that if a mistake is made, it won't result in an innocent
person being sent to prison or the gallows.

McGyver