Justice Requires Unanimous Verdicts

* Linda Thrall Walters wants to overturn the system of unanimous jury verdicts (Column, June 22). The purpose of a jury trial is to provide justice for the victim, the accused and society. Entering the judicial system, the accused has all the cards stacked against him/her at the outset. The full weight of the prosecutor’s office, the vast investigatory powers of the police and the financial strength of the government are weighed against the resources of the accused. The jury system is the last protection the citizenry has against unjust prosecution.

Referring to the O.J. trial, if every defendant “decided to push the system to the limit” we would have fewer people wrongly convicted. Every time a defense attorney forces the prosecutors to prove a point, it is our rights, yours and mine, that are protected.

If we had a system free of police corruption or the politics of the prosecutors office, perhaps the system would serve its intended purpose. In my civics class (admittedly in the 1950s) we were taught that it is better for 10 guilty people to go free than to incarcerate one innocent person. Permitting felony convictions by less than unanimous votes would send more innocent people to prison, since the burden of proof now required to convince 12 people would be severely reduced.

If the argument is a matter of saving dollars, why not go to the extreme. Why stop at 10-2? Next year when we find out that the problem has not been solved, we can change the requirement to 5-5. Or why have trials at all? Let’s turn it around. Send the accused to prison unless a unanimous jury determines he/she is innocent.

Ms. Walters suggests that “precious tax dollars could be redirected to programs supporting education and prevention.” California taxpayers have shown in recent years that money has been willingly spent to build and stock more prisons as spending on education is reduced. From whence would come the education and prevention?

To Ms. Walters I say, “We see things not as they are, but as we are.”

RICHARD A. HEIN

Fullerton