This is an explanation for passage 1 of LSAT preptest 37, the June 2002 LSAT. This passage is about why we should keep the unanimity requirement for criminal trials by jury.
This section has paragraph summaries and an analysis of the passage, links to the explanations for the questions are below.
- Some people say that forcing juries to agree unanimously can lead to unnecessary retrials.
- Statistical evidence: most juries aren’t hung. Second point: A hung jury means that a jury deliberated seriously, which is what we want.
- Unanimity helps protect the innocent from false convictions. And it ensures that every juror is listened to (which leads to true deliberation).
This passage is an argument. It presents the case for the opposing side, then argues against it.
It’s not a bulletproof argument. For instance, there’s no evidence that hung juries always indicate true deliberation. It could just be some jerk refusing to admit he’s wrong. That possibility was mentioned in the first paragraph, and the author didn’t address it.
Their main point is that unanimous verdicts make trials fairer, and they don’t cause many problems.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions