Persuasive Paper Part 3: Possible Disadvantages, Answers, with Visuals
Rodney Howard
Professor: Holly Sprinkle
English Research and Writing
September, 1st, 2015

Introduction
There is a problem that exists with hung juries. It should be suggested that a supermajority be required to convict, and a mere majority be required to acquit. These reforms would effectively abolish the hung jury. We need to stop giving holdouts the power to prevent convictions and I feel that all jurors should not have to agree, only the majority. Presently, both acquittals and convictions must be unanimous in federal court and in forty-eight states. That's not fair to the defendant. He fails to get the benefit of a clear result that would allow repose, and he faces the risk of retrial, even if eleven jurors thought either that he was innocent, or that the government had failed to prove its case. (Ethan J. Leib 2006) A solution needs to be proposed to help in abolishing the hung jury.
Overview of the problem
Why juries hang at these rates isn’t clear. Some commentators claim that hung juries are the product of eccentric or nullifying holdout jurors. Most commentary focuses rather narrowly on the supposed failings of the individual members of a hanging jury, such as jurors’ inability to comprehend the evidence and the law, their unwillingness to follow the law, or their illegitimate refusal to reach a verdict. The experimental data recommend more complex and nuanced explanations. Based on their data, For instance, 10% of the cases in which the trial evidence was fairly close that is, it did not powerfully favor either the prosecution or the defendant resulted in hung juries, regardless of the complexity of the trials. In evaluation, cases in which the evidence strongly favored one party resulted in hung juries in 2% of the easy cases and in 5% of the complex cases. There are judge’s views