peer response to this Based on these two proposals, I feel that the first change would be a better implementation of the system rather than the first one. I do not believe that eliminating the need for a unanimous verdict undermines the right to due process of law, as I feel that the majority of the jury team being in agreement on one verdict is enough to ensure that the verdict is a fair one. Both proposals would also have their pros and cons. The pros of a proposal to eliminate the need for a unanimous verdict are that it would avoid hung juries, result in fewer retrials, and save court costs (Roberson & Winters, 2019). Some of the cons of this proposal are that, in terms of a guilty verdict, some people feel that it fails to establish that guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, since there are members who did not vote in agreement with the others. Eliminating unanimous verdicts could also have an effect on public trust, as some could see it as being unfair. Another con would be increased appeals. Despite this, I do believe that this proposal would be constitutional. Some of the pros of the second proposal, which involves changing the number of jurors from 12 to 6, are increased efficiency due to the smaller jury size and cost savings, as fewer jurors means reduced expenses that would have to be allocated to juror compensations. Some of the cons would be reduced representation, as there is a smaller group of individuals, and a higher risk of bias, as it can be easier