Diluted Doubt

A vital element in the criminal jury system that the U.S. has inherited from Britain is the concept of unanimity. For a man to be convicted, the prosecution must persuade every juror that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The hope is that a holdout will sometimes prevent a miscarriage of justice. But in Britain the unanimity requirement is about to be abandoned.

Prodded by a crime rate that has sharply increased since World War II, the Labor government introduced a Criminal Justice reform bill into Parliament last fall. Tucked away among its provisions was the proposition that instead of being unanimous, criminal jury verdicts should require only a 10-to-2 majority. The proposition was surprising in almost every way, not least of all because it provoked practically no reaction from either the public or the press. It was supported by some of the highest ranking jurists in the land, notably the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker of Waddington, who argued that under the present jury setup "many, many guilty persons are acquitted."

Unreasonable? The problem, said those who supported the 10-to-2 majority, is that too often justice is frustrated by a silly, prejudiced, stupid, obstinate or even bribed juror who will not go along with the other eleven. Tory shadow cabinet Home Minister Quintin Hogg joined his Labor opposite number Roy Jenkins in supporting the legislation. "A reasonable doubt," he said, "is nothing more than a doubt from which reasons can be given. The fact that one or two men out of twelve differ from the others does not establish that their doubts are reasonable."

All very well, countered Tory M.P. Sir John Hobson, "if all the jury were doing was objectively solving an intellectual problem. But it has a much more important function, that of applying its subjective judgment to the witnesses who appear before it. Each one of the twelve jurors must consider how far one or other of all those witnesses are or are not to be believed."

Last month the majority-verdict rule passed its third reading before the House of Commons by a comfortable 180-to-102 vote. The bill then went to the House of Lords, which is expected to okay it in a few weeks.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.