Bourgeoise Vs Proletariat

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is common phrase in criminal law. It means that unless the jury is certain beyond all doubt that the defendant committed the crime, they should not issue a guilty verdict. No exceptions. Unless the trial takes place in Oregon, that is. Oregon and Louisiana are the only two states that allow for a non-unanimous jury conviction, allowing for a 10-2 jury to issue a ruling. This deviance from the normal rule of law is an example of Marx’s conflict theory of law. The non-unanimous jury rule creates a conflict between two groups of citizens. Similar to the Bourgeoise and the Proletariat, these groups are the underrepresented, consisting of minorities and the lower class, and the governing class, made up of middle and

African Americans are jailed at a rate five times higher than white citizens in Oregon, especially astounding for a state that is only 2% black. While it is hard to tell exactly how much the non-unanimous jury rule accounts for this disparity, it likely plays a factor. The Constitution guarantees a right to trial by a jury of your peers. However, if only one or two members of the jury are the same race or class as the defendant, and their voice is essentially nullified, it is hard to say it is actually a jury of peers. In this way it’s likely the rule increases convictions for minorities. Another facet of Marx’s theory is that law is designed to benefit the ruling class while keeping the lower class at a disadvantage. By increasing conviction rates for minorities, this law keeps them at a disadvantage in society, maintaining the social divide between the two groups. In this way the law fits with Marx’s

The creation of the law began with the case of Jake Silverman. Silverman was on trial for 2nd degree murder, and most likely would have received the death penalty if convicted. 11 of the 12 jurors were for the conviction, but one juror held out, leading to Silverman only being charged with manslaughter and being sentenced to three years in prison. This lead to controversy throughout the state. The newspaper The Oregonian said in response to the case, “This newspaper's opinion is that the increased urbanization of American life ... and the vast immigration into America from southern and eastern Europe, of people untrained in the jury system, have combined to make the jury of twelve increasingly unwieldy and unsatisfactory.” This opinion was widely shared, and a year later an amendment was passed to allow for jury convictions by a 10-2 vote. The facts of this case show that the intent of the law is consistent with conflict theory, as it developed from the upper classes desire to minimize the power of the lower