Slight more contentious is that it seems not unreasonable to expect unanimity from the Supreme Court itself.
> Learning to negotiate in a non-adversarial way is an undervalued skill.
Absolutely. But another important systematically undertaught skill is how to operate when facing bad actors, narcissistic and such. These people destroy teams and institutions, precisely because most people dont know how to deal with them and most advice about good communication pretends they dont exist.
Aye. Do you(or anyone) have any resources/reading suggestions on how to be effective with this category of interaction? Particularly when it is coming from someone in a position of relative power? Another variant that seems distinct from straight narcissism—although it may be related or just a different manifestation—are people who, for lack of a more graceful way of saying it, only hear what they want to hear.
Not really refuting your point, and definitely thinking about it in specific contexts. For example a consistent bad faith actor on a team at work can expect to eventually be removed from the team, and avoiding hiring these people (or bringing them into decision making processes) is one of the goals of a good hiring process. It’s usually framed as “culture fit”, to drop another euphemism.
Neither side is likely be in love with the jury they get, but adversarial process introduces the fairest outcome we could expect.
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.
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.