Jury, HungLast night, before I fell asleep, I suddenly thought of the idea of "reasonable doubt". What I had in mind, really, was the different jury systems. For instance, in Hong Kong, the jury of a criminal trial consists of 7 members, whereas here in Canada we have 12. When it comes to murder cases, in HK it only takes a majority of 5 outta 7 to come to a conviction. Under the Canadian system, however, the decision must be unanimous - meaning that all 12 members must agree on the same verdict. Now I suppose this is indeed a more direct (& absolute??) way of showing that there exists no reasonable doubt, since theoratically, "everyone" believes that the accused has committed the crime. Or is that so?? 'Cause sometimes, when the jury cannot come to an agreement, members of opposing sides tend to spend more time on persuading each other rather than discussing details of the case. In some cases even, there needs to be no persuasion, as some members will simply give in under the frightening idea of segregation (that's when they're separated from family, work, & EVERYTHING ELSE on this Earth). Either way, when things really don't work out, the jury becomes what we call a "hung jury"...otherwise known as a waste of taxpayers' time and money. Now, putting all these factors in mind, is our system efficient?? Or more importantly, just?? Is the concept of "beyond reasonable doubt" still being served"?? One might say, "well, then I guess the system in Hong Kong is better "...yet I do not agree. When the verdict is reached based on a majority and not a unanimity, how is that just?? Doesn't that mean there IS reasonable doubt??
This reminds me of what I read about the Jim Williams case in John Berendt's
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. In one of the trials, there was an old lady in the jury. She boldly stuck to her belief of Williams' innocence & claimed that he should not be convicted. While the other 11 members tried hard enough to change her mind, she never did. As a result, the judge had to call a new trial since it was impossible for the jury to come to a verdict. Isn't that ridiculous?? I'm not saying that the old lady is wrong for sticking to her beliefs...but I think the court's time is too precious to be wasted like that. While billions of cases are still waiting in line to be heard, a billion others are created simply because of occurrences like these. Now, just don't get me started on the appeal system...<grrr...>
