Unanimous Verdicts are better that Majority Verdicts in Ref of "12 Angry Men"

I would like to begin my argument by highlighting one key point: a majority verdict (technically called a supermajority verdict) requires a vote of 10-2 or 11-1. This is but a hair away from unanimity, and it still encompasses the desire of the majority, a democratic principle upon which many things are determined. Majority rules, if you will. Unanimous verdicts have, as society has grown and evolved, become the social "norm. " With unanimous verdicts, all twelve jurors must agree to find the defendant guilty or innocent--but, of course, making twelve people agree on a subject of such magnitude can be extremely difficult. In 6% percent of cases, juries are hung,[1] perhaps unsurprisingly given the aforementioned difficulty of making twelve people agree on one single thing. The axiom "it only takes one to hang"[2] is all too true--one single person disagreeing with the other eleven jurors has the power to hang the jury and give the defendant an entirely new trial, and to cost the government even more money to repeat the trial. Too much power is in the hands of each individual with the unanimous verdict. For example: what if each and every citizen in the United States had to agree on who would be elected President? The ensuing result would be reelection after reelection, and in all likelihood, corruption and bribery, both of which are commonplace in trials where a unanimous verdict is required. Ignoring the blatant wrongness of jury tampering for a moment, suppose you had twelve jurors deliberating. They need a unanimous verdict. Eleven of them agree that the defendant is guilty. Juror 3, however, has been bribed. Despite what he truly believes, he staunchly opposes the other jurors and finds the defendant innocent. The jury hangs and the defendant must be retried. However, if, in this case, a supermajority verdict is required, the jury will not hang. Juror 3's corruption does not alter the proceedings--he is silenced by the majority. The defendant is found guilty, 11-1. No retrials, no other jury, no more money going into this case. It is settled by the supermajority. Supermajority verdicts, in addition to cutting the number of hung juries and bribed jurors, can virtually eliminate problems caused by rogue jurors and can reduce the number of compromise verdicts. [3] In regards to the film 12 Angry Men, I would like to refute bring up major point: while the jurors did initially have an 11-1 vote (a supermajority) of guilty, this does not mean that Juror 8 would not have been allowed to plead his case, whether unanimity or a supermajority be required. He would have still had the opportunity to make a case for the innocence of the defendant. If a supermajority had been required in the film, the other jurors would not have had to convince the last two jurors (their numbers escape me for the moment)"the arguments would have been made, the discussions would have been had, and the verdict would have come in at 10-2 for innocent. Hypothetically speaking, let's assume that, in the film, the final two jurors would not have changed their vote. The jury would have hung and the defendant would have been retried and likely found guilty. A supermajority eliminates that risk by taking what the majority wants--an intrinsically democratic and fair principle--and acting upon it. Unanimous verdicts only carry with them chances of corruption and an increased risk of hung juries. Once again, thank you to my opponent for initiating this debate! Sources: [1] . http://www.ncscjurystudies.org... [2] . http://apublicdefender.com... [3] . http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au...