Should rules requiring all members of a jury to agree for conviction be changed?

Rules for the Whole Jury Agreement on Conviction
Institution affiliation
Student’s Name

The study of justice law is always evolving changing times come along with subtle but quite necessary amendments. The agreement of the jury on a conviction is a rule that has its pitfalls beginning by trying this question. If there were any member of the board who is not in full agreement on the guilty state, would that be of favor to the defendant? The sixth amendment of the Bills of Right, says that a defendant will enjoy the right to trial in criminal court by the impartial jury of the state; Burns, R. G. (2007) however, is it so.
This topic has debates in the criminal courtrooms, and every occasion the jury unanimously votes for a conviction Gilboa, I., & Vieille, N. (2002). There has for long always existed a question of whether the vote has not been not just unanimous but unfavorably strategic too? Compared to the majority rule where a vote is vital even the voters split their votes. In the unanimity vote, the vote is crucial only when the vote is as per the votes of the rest of the jury Timothy F. & Wolfgang P. (2007). When looked into profound and keen the way the information leading to the unanimous decision in the voting will always sound directive and mutual.
The audiences expected present for the defense of the thesis expect to be panel with advanced knowledge of the research topic. It will comprise professors of law and an expert team in criminal justice with refined understanding of the laws, who demand thorough study of the jury vote.

The decision expected from the audience will have to be purely out of merit, and out of research on this thesis paper. The team has quite a lot of similar questions on the topic of unanimous vote and majority vote.
This study is purposed to have the following questions answered:
When does the unanimous vote in the criminal court?
Is the unanimity vote a strategic vote that biases the jury to ensure they vote the same?
Which instances should, the majority vote replace the majority vote?
This study will aim to answer the central question of why the unanimity rule is considerable for change. The study will collect primary data on the criminal court trials and sessions that need a unanimity vote. It will heavily rely on secondary sources of information from the university resource center on the topic of discussion. The study is purported to use both the qualitative and quantitative research methods. The qualitative methods in the paper will be to enable researcher deduce the generalizations and motives in the court in the courtrooms. The quantitative research methods will in this thesis come to calculate the correlation and formulate charts on the various data collected from defendants and various members of the jury. This bit will aim to calculate statistics on the different aspects of the data collected from the primary and secondary sources.
The secondary sources for the study are as follows, available at Strayer University Resource Center.
Primary Sources Secondary sources
Interviews Recordings with members of jury Thesis “Illustrated Great Decisions of the Supreme Court” by Tony Mauro
Duly filled Questionnaires by Jury members “Strategic incentives in elections with heterogeneous information” Research article by Joseph Charles McMurray
Doctoral Dissertation Thesis by Timothy Fedderson on “Judging the Jury Vote” “In the jury box : controversies in the courtroom” a book by Lawrence S. Wrightsman, Saul m Kassin and Cynthia E. Willis

References
Burns, R. G. (2007). The criminal justice system. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Gilboa, I., & Vieille, N. (2002). Majority vote following a debate. Jouy-en-Josas: Groupe HEC.
Mauro, T. (2006). Illustrated great decisions of the Supreme Court. Washington, D.C: CQ Press.
McMurray, J. C. (2010). Strategic incentives in elections with heterogeneous information he Supreme Court. Washington, D.C: CQ Press
Timothy Feddersen & Wolfgang Pesendorfer. (2007) Judging the Jury Vote. New York Press
Wrightsman, L. S., Kassin, S. M., & Willis, C. E. (1987). In the jury box: Controversies in the courtroom. Newbur This board Park: Sage Publications.
.