Guys, Do you agree with the US jury system needing to be unanimous in their vote for a verdict to be valid?

[foxsquirrell]

This is one of the most ridiculous and frustrating rule in the law. How is it that a single juror who disagrees with the rest of the jurors invalidates the verdict.

There needs to be an odd number of jurors so that they can NEVER be equal and a 6 to 5 vote in an eleven jury system for example would be a verdict as per the 6 votes.

Not at all. Majority rules. No need for all the jurors to agree

Yes they all need to agree for a verdict to be valid

A total of 3 votes were cast: 1 girls and 2 guys. See detailed results

[DryGermanGuy]

That whole jury system is a silly relic. Basically two sides conduct a circus show for an audience of rubes and the better show "wins". Get professional judges all around.

[Anonymous]

We should be sure someone is guilty. 6-5 is basically a coin flip. Many innocent people would be in jail. Maybe 11-1 should be good enough for being over 90% but it needs to be far higher than a simple majority.

[foxsquirrell]

Being sure of guilt is very important yes, but often it is not that there is doubts about the facts but rather if the facts make a person guilty or not. One person has no stronger vote than the other so a simple majority should be valid. Maybe they should increase the number of jurors to make the verdict stronger.
Many more criminals would go to jail too by the way. We should mention this too. It will be over all more positive than negative.

To prevent innocent people from being convicted I would change the rules of evidence or give more power to the police so that they can do a better job not make the system more difficult for criminals to be sent to prison and pay for their crimes.