In the web page concerning "Efficiency of the Common Law Process" (http://theweb.badm.sc.edu/glenn/eclaw_10.htm). The following questions and points were noted: (Candace: The above website seems to be gone)
Why unanimity among twelve jurors?
Supreme Court has accepted as legal the use of 6-member juries,
or the use of only 10-2 majorities, in some trials.
Evidence suggests no loss of "accuracy" and significant cost savings.
Why just a 10-2 majority? Why not a simple majority?
Here's some food for thought:
Before one may adequately address those questions and points, one must first understand what kind of a legal system we have: Is it a republic, or is it a democracy? [For a discussion about the difference, see repvsdem.htm]
Essentially, a jury is a cross section of the body politic. Each member of the jury, statistically speaking, represents 1/12th of the body politic. How that jury comes to its verdict depends upon whether you have a republican or democratic form of government.
If the legal system is that of a republic, then the whole of the jury is necessary for a conviction. The sovereign immunity of one of the people stands firm against all of the other sovereign people unless 100% of the other sovereign people (as represented by the jury) are against him. In other words, a minority opinion has equal standing with any other opinion, unless 100% of the people (as represented by the jury) say that opinion of the accused is wrong.
If the legal system is that of a democracy, then only a majority of the jury is necessary for conviction. Whether it is a simple majority or a 2/3rd majority, or a 10:2 majority; the particular ratio is determined by the body politic acting through the legislating representatives. Just as a democracy operates by majority rule, so does the jury act proportionately. Again, a jury is a cross section of the body politic. If a jury may convict with a 10-2 vote, then we know that 2/12ths of the body politic may be ignored...there is no room for a minority opinion that small: the opinion of 10/12ths of the body politic will prevail.
In summary: If a republic, then 100% of the jury must convict. If a democracy, then whatever percentage is specified by the majority of the body politic is what is.
A republican form of government is very demanding on public officials. A democracy is far easier to manage. In the last dozen or so decades, there has been significant and successful effort to convince the people that we live in a democracy. The idea of a republic has been minimized or allowed to be confused with that of a democracy. Thomas Jefferson alluded many times to the fact that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist. He pointed out that a republic was the best form of government, but only if the public is educated. Otherwise it may deteriorate into a dictatorship of the majority (a democracy), or some less respectable form of government.
To accomplish the conversion to a democracy, it was necessary to change the system. It was hopeless to try to change the U.S. Constitution in 1850. So, the education system was changed instead. Public schools were created (the military forced children into the first school), and over a hundred year period (roughly 1850 to 1950) the subject of Civics was phased out of the civics classes, and the subject of American Government was substituted in. When the conversion was complete, the high school classes were renamed American Government, and there were insufficient numbers of knowledgeable people around to effectively object.
We still have a constitutional provision for a republic, but the country is being run as a democracy because neither the people nor the citizens know the difference. This lack of knowledge is reflected in the present ongoing debate about the number of jurists' votes required to convict.
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/majuryty.htm
