Keep the '10-2' law

America’s legal system, the old saying goes, isn’t perfect but it’s the best we’ve got.

We think the same is true of Oregon’s unique law regarding jury trials.

We’re the only state where, on a 12-person jury, 10 votes are sufficient to convict, or to acquit, the defendant in most felony cases. (Louisiana requires nine votes.)

Unanimous verdicts are required in Oregon murder trials, however.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that Oregon’s system was constitutional since it applies to state courts but not federal venues, the high court recently asked Oregon officials to defend the system.

Some legal scholars think that request indicates the Supreme Court’s interest in reconsidering the 1972 decision.

If that happens, we hope a majority of justices decide to uphold that ruling.

Oregon’s “10-2” system is both constitutional and fair.

We don’t believe that a defendant convicted of, say, rape by a 10-2 vote is somehow less guilty than someone convicted on a 12-0 verdict.

Convincing 10 out of 12 people that a person is guilty, or innocent, beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard.

We’ll concede that it’s comforting to think that one or two people could thwart an unjust verdict.

But such a scenario seems improbable.

What seems much more likely, though, is a trial in which one or two jurors block the conviction of a guilty person, or the acquittal of an innocent, either because they weren’t competent to weigh the evidence, or because they were motivated by a bias which neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorney ferreted out while questioning prospective jurors.

The bottom line here is that any reasonable person would agree that it’s vastly more likely that a 12-person jury would include one or two people who botch their task, either unwittingly or intentionally, than it is that a jury would contain 10 flawed jurors.

Oregon’s wise law ensures that one or two such jurors don’t further foul our already imperfect system.