2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

Other states require jury unanimity, and it has not destroyed the system (or destroyed public confidence). Presenting this proposed change as a judicial apocalypse flies in the face of the experience of every other state in the nation except Louisiana. Unanimous juries force people on the jury to think about the evidence, and try to persuade holdouts with the evidence.

Also, any prosecutor who believes that 100% of the defendants he's prosecuted were guilty is statistically incorrect. Look at DNA testing results exonerating inmates who have been in prison for decades. And I say that as someone who worked for the prosecutor's office in another state, and is very pro-prosecution.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context