What is the main conclusion of the passage?
Juries in many countries deliver verdicts without explanation. Defenders of the practice say that secrecy protects jurors from pressure and lets them apply common sense without legal technicalities. But a verdict that comes with no reasons cannot be properly appealed, since a higher court cannot tell whether the jury misunderstood the law or simply doubted a witness. A judge who convicts must write a judgment that exposes the logic to criticism, and there is no obvious reason why twelve citizens should be exempt from the same discipline. It may be replied that reasons would be artificial, invented after the event. Yet that is an argument for improving how reasons are gathered, not for abandoning them. A system that can ask a defendant to accept being locked away should be able to say why.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: D. Juries should be required to explain the reasons for their verdicts
- Step 1: The final sentences and the call to improve how reasons are gathered point to one recommendation: reasons should be given.
- Step 2: The earlier points about appeals and judges are support for that recommendation, not the conclusion itself.
Answer
Juries should be required to explain the reasons for their verdicts.
Why not the others: The author never calls for public deliberations or the replacement of juries; the comparison with judges only supports the demand for reasons.
Practise more Courts and juries.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.