NPresently most countries want their juries to completely acquit defendants who they think are as little as 10% or less in their mind, to be actually innocent. Because it is much worse to convict an innocent person than acquit a guilty one. But I think it is wrong to completely act as if someone is innocent if the crime is serious and the jury thinks he probably did it. The probably guilty verdict would allow the government to put more constraints on that person than normally allowed. Or, in the case of sexual assault allegations, that verdict prevents the accuser of being considered a liar.
No further explanation needed. All comments welcome.
Oregon and Louisiana permit non-unanimous guilty verdicts. This was challenged and went to the US Supreme Court, which upheld the right of these states to convict persons without having a unanimous vote. In my opinion, the vote would have to be either 11-1 or 10-2 to consider appending any probably guilty consequences.