Help me understand this sentence please!

Halloalles

"But the material costs of hung juries do not warrant losing the benefit to society of the unanimous verdict."
from the 1st RC passage of PT37

Does this sentence mean, instances of hung juries do not necessarily mean that the unanimous verdict system has no benefit?

akistotle

@Halloalles said:
"But the material costs of hung juries do not warrant losing the benefit to society of the unanimous verdict."
from the 1st RC passage of PT37

Does this sentence mean, instances of hung juries do not necessarily mean that the unanimous verdict system has no benefit?

Well, I can't read the whole passage now so I don't know the context, but I think it means something like, "Just because there are costs of hung juries, it doesn't mean it's okay for the society to lose the benefits of the unanimous verdict."

I'm guessing it's saying that the unanimity requirement brings bad things like hung juries but there are more benefits! (like fair verdicts?)

Halloalles

that aligns with my understanding of the sentence!

Thank you!

Bamboosprout

I would read for sentence structure, and to me, this sentence is a comparative statement between cost of hung juries, and benefit of unanimous decisions. In particular, it says the benefit is equal to or greater than the cost, both of which exist simultaneously. I would also read this sentence as a counter point to whatever came before.

Seeking Perfection

"But the material costs of hung juries do not warrant losing the benefit to society of the unanimous verdict."

This might be the rare case where a tiny bit of outside knowledge or info from the rest of the passage is helpful.

Requiring a unanimous verdict causes more hung juries than requiring a majority or a supermajority of the jury because if even one juror disagrees with the rest, then the jury will be hung.

When a jury is hung in a criminal trial, there is a retrial unless the prosecution gives up or a plea deal is reached. Trials and retrials cost money which is bad for society(but good for lawyers ).

The sentence is saying the benefits of requiring a unanimous verdict (probably mostly avoiding the prosecution of innocent people) are greater/more important than the material costs of paying for the retrials. Therefore, we should require unanimous verdicts.