[colde]

I am not sure it's a great way to go in this case. In Denmark for instance, there is no unanimous requirement for conviction, and having been on juries here, it would absolutely result in a lot of people going free. I have absolutely seen cases where one person is either on some principle or just convinced they are right refuse to view the person that is charged as guilty. I am not sure that really should prevent convinction.

But i guess part of this also relies on the make up of the jury. If people in general is more likely to convict easier, it might make more sense to adjust that by requiring them to unanimous, in the reverse situation you might not want to require that because it becomes almost impossible to convict anyone.

[vidarh]

Norway abandoned juries recently, and in a perfect example of why the last case decided by jury involved a case where the jury provably returned a verdict that was logically impossible (two questions that were dependent in such a way that one of the four combinations was impossible if they followed instructions; the jury returned the one impossible combination)

The "new" system is a variation of what has long been used for non-jury cases, with some variation: A panel of judges where a minority are professional, legally trained judges and the majority are "lay judges" drawn from effectively the same pool as the juries. The total number of judges on the panel depends on the type of case and potential length of a sentence. They all deliberate together.