Though not a lawyer, I've always been interested in the law. I found this op-ed very interesting. It looks at the historical precedent for having a 12 person jury, and also the inadequacy of smaller panels in providing better legal outcomes.
I served on a jury for a felony court case in Florida. There were seven of us on the panel, 6 jurors and one alternate. We are among the states that do not require a higher number of jurors. Although the case we heard was fairly straightforward, I can see where a smaller group might fail to provide the robust discussion of a larger number.
Were I a defendant I would prefer twelve. It seems like the Founding Fathers felt that way also.
08 January 2009
How many Angry Men?
Labels: Constitution, History, Law
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment