What is the justification for discouraging juries from failing to reach a verdict?
<p>It was <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40292219" rel="nofollow noreferrer">reported yesterday</a> that the jury in the Bill Cosby case was deadlocked but was ordered by the judge to continue to try to reach a verdict.</p>

<p>This was done by reading a standard statement:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Judge Steven O'Neill read a standard statement asking them to try to
  agree on some or all of the counts.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I have seen judges in the UK do similar things.</p>

<p>What is the justification for this? If a juror has made a decision and you force him to go away and "think again", it seems to me that you're essentially telling him that you want him to change his mind. This is bound to put some pressure on jurors to reach a decision on the basis of keeping the judge happy, rather than on genuine confidence.</p>

<p>In a criminal case, why does a subsequent guilty verdict satisfy the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof, when it is clear that any juror who changed his verdict did in fact have quite significant doubt?</p>

<p>Because it is in everybody's interest that the case be finalised one way or the other. A hung jury leaves everyone in limbo - the prosecution needs to decide whether (and when) to go for a retrial and the defendant is unable to get on with their life.</p>

<p>A jury is supposed to reach a unanimous verdict - how they do it is up to them. Pressure by some jurors on others is OK so long as it doesn't cross over into coercion. Some jurisdictions allow for majority verdicts (usually 10-2) but this is a relatively recent phenomenon. </p>

<p>Each jury decides for itself what 'reasonable doubt' means. If I were advocating acquittal I would certainly point out that if the prosecution hasn't convinced me then that is 'reasonable doubt' but I may not win that argument.</p>

united-states united-kingdom jury