it's very frustrating when one juror won't convict, while the other 11, and the whole world, thinks guilt is obvious.

so, ludwig suggests we must require such a hold-out juror to explain himself, and suffer some punishment if we don't like the explanation.

can you think of any way more likely to encourage jury avoidance? if a small fine doesn't get submission, will we move on to a big fine? a few months in prison?

suppose this juror happens to know that the decisive evidence is a lie from personal experience? whistleblowing is not survival oriented behavior in australia, so a contrary opinion may be a very brave and public spirited act.

the practical solution to hung juries is quite simple: large juries and large-majority resolution.

most important, a free nation doesn't coerce opinion.

over to you, ludwig:

A hold out juror does already have to explain themselves...to the other jurors. For them to be publicly vilified for the opinions and decisions that we make them give...is ridiculous. Who's to say the other 11 jurors didn't make a decision out of frustration and the single juror that "whoever" wants to crucify and debate their decision isn't the only one being logical and playing by the rules?.

Convicting people by majority is insane.

One hold-out-juror is all that is required for the crimes to go unpunished.
Who polices the jury selection process as the jurors are selected by the same dishonest individuals who provide the pretend courts.
Was the latest high profile hearing actually conducted in one of Her Majesty's Courts ?

DEMOS, why start a new thread? This just follows directly on from the discussion, and totally within the subject matter of ‘Should jurors be compelled to give reasons for their verdicts?’; http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=731

“so, ludwig suggests we must require such a hold-out juror to explain himself, and suffer some punishment if we don't like the explanation.”

You either have a fundamental problem with understanding peoples’ positions despite clear statements, or you delight in deliberately twisting things to the point of misrepresentation. Show me where I have suggested that a hold-out juror should explain himself. That's right, I haven't.

I made my position perfectly clear here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=731#13229
This double post addresses your questions entirely, I would think. Obviously you read them before you started this thread. So what gives?

As StG points out, it may be the majority who are frustrated and perhaps just go along with the views of the member of the jury with the strongest personality, quite apart from what they truly believe, and it might be the person who holds out who has the only real principles and belief in his/her responsibilities.

All we can do is put some onus on jurors to show that they have followed the case, understood at least the main factors, and made a valued judgement accordingly.

I would think that the only time punishment would ever be appropriate would be when a juror just cannot show that they have taken any interest in the proceedings and have been daydreaming or mentally preoccupied during the hearing.

I'm not up to speed on this topic, however, I shall relate my last two times as a juror.

Two pressing points: "Circumstantial evidence" and "beyond reasonable doubt."

Case 1: Defendant caught with possession of drugs in his caravan.

Outcome: All jurors (except me) deemed defendant not guilty since he said the drugs were concealed in a cupboard on his partner's side of the bed. I resisted pressure to concede, on conscience, and held the case up for three hours.

Result: 11 to 1: Not guilty

Three months later, I observed in the local paper the defendant in question was charged with perjury. Reason unknown.

Case 2: Defendant accused of grabbing young woman's breasts at a bar. Witness (young woman allegedly molested) was rather provocatively dressed for a court appearance.

Outcome: All jurors (except me) deemed the defendant not guilty.

Result: Not guilty

Whilst chatting to other jurors outside the courthouse, after the case, the defendant emerged and called: "Gee, thanks a lot folks." To which I replied: "And don't you do that again, you naughty boy."

He replied: "No I won't, I promise!"

MAJORITY VERDICTS THREATEN VICTIMS

I have succinctly dealt with the issue of majority verdicts at http://grputland.blogspot.com/2005/12/majority-verdicts-threaten-victims.html and http://grputland.blogspot.com/2006/07/victims-in-double-jeopardy.html .