In Tom Sowell's article today in Townhall.com

he manages to come up with something else I disagree with.

One of his points is, "The requirement for unanimous jury verdicts is long overdue for reconsideration." I'd just say no to that one. That is the one place I'm afraid I'm a liberal. It should be really hard to convict somebody. I don't want innocents in prison. I don't mind it if the guy's a career criminal so much, but that's getting off the point. There is a problem today about jurors understanding the rules of evidence, but that's an education problem that needs fixing.

This is better considered:

The time is also long overdue to reconsider the current practice of having jurors selected with vetoes by the lawyers in the case. When prospective jurors are given 30-page questionnaires made up by lawyers, asking intrusive questions about their personal lives and beliefs, the situation has gotten completely out of hand.

Courts do not exist for the sake of lawyers but for the sake of the public. Allowing lawyers to fish around in hopes of finding one mushhead who can save their client makes no sense.

Anonymous jurors, selected by lottery, and not restricted to unanimous verdicts, should be good enough for anyone in an inherently imperfect world. In such a system, cranks and ideologues would not have nearly the leverage that they do now.

And I think people should consider the arguments for jury nullification presented by the Fully Informed Jury Association, and articles like this short one, Jury Nullification by Doug Linder (2001), and this Jury Nullification and the Rule of Law by my old friend Kelly Ross.