Week 8 : The Confirmation

1. What is my thesis?
Civic participation in criminal trials should exist to get more acceptable judgments.

2. What types of source am I using to defend my thesis?
I am using expert opinions

3. Are my arguments mostly based on evidence, logic or emotion?
My arguments based on analysis. Although it has small amount of evidence such as statistics because it is the matter of the system implemented recently, I will write logically through using famous people's opinion.


My Confirmation

Perhaps the most important part of discussing civic participation in criminal trials is the impacts of juries. They play important role in issuing a reprint. As the judicature created the juries to communicate with nations, their verdict represent the public's opinion. Therefore, they can solve the problem in the different aspects from the judges. Is is very important role of the judges. Before this system was created, people had to accept the judgement sentenced by the judges. Although the opinion of the public was different from the result, they could not do anything to reverse the judgement because it was already defined and the principle of not reopening a settled case prohibited them from asserting another opinion about the judgement. It leads to strange results. Although nations are under the law which is used to judge, they cannot assert their opinion to jurisdiction they also get influenced. Therefore, people became irritated or did not have concern about the judgement.


To communicate with them and change their heart, Korean government implemented civic participation in criminal trials system. Therefore, we can see important roles of juries that represent the public. They can reflect the opinion of the public. It leads to increase of  the nations' satisfaction toward the judgement. Also juries can sentence a verdict asides from principle of evidential justice. Many people are suffer from the principle of evidential justice since less exact evidences cannot be accepted in the aspects of the law. So, the person who are innocent but only have emotional evidence will be punished inappropriately. However, juries are far from these institutions so they can verdict based on emotional factors (if the evidence the dock presented is all the emotional evidences). It leads to more flexible judgement.


Nations participating in criminal trials  have more responsibility toward the incident than the attorney. As Professor Solomon writes,

"Perhaps lawyers value the monetary aspects of the litigation to the exclusion of the value of demanding accountability and answers for wrongs"

lawyers tend to pay more attention to the monetary aspects of the litigation than answers for wrongs. On the other hands, juries are paid fixed amount of money. Therefore, in the same situation that should participate in trials, juries will do more seriously than the lawyers. Trial is the most important process of solving problem so it should be progressed seriously. However, in the past that juries did not participate in trials, the judgments were made in the trial containing the lawyers who negligent at proving the answers for wrongs and the judges who sentence a punishment, just taking account of those lawyers' opinion. Now, juries are blocking these bad results by asserting their opinion toward the judicature. It is same as closing the judicature scamper ignoring the innocent and the opinion of the public and paying more attention to the docks' innocent, preventing inappropriate punishment. It can be done because of the existence of the juries.


Although some people doubt the juries' importance and the qualification of them, juries are playing important role in trials as the connecting link between nations and the judicature by asserting the opinion of the public. It leads to the increase of nations' participation in jurisdiction and satisfaction for the judgement. Also, they work with lots of responsibility to find out innocent person.

Week 7 : The Narration

My persuasive argument thesis is: To get more acceptable judgments, Civic Participation in Criminal Trials should exist.

1. What do people already know about my topic?

Everyone knows that civic participation in jurisdiction is faint. Everyone knows civic participation in criminal trials will help people to assert their opinion to the judgement.

Also, they always conflict with the result of judgement that their opinion is excluded.

2. What research has already been done about my topic?

http://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2014/07/emphasize-the-civic-role-of-your-civil-trial.html
 - Good suggestions of making juries' trial more civic by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm
http://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2012/12/consider-the-jurys-political-role.html - Good analysis of political roles of civil juries. It is useful to support my opinion.

3. What are the implications of my argument (What if I'm right? What if I'm right and people ignore me?)

If people ignore me, they will confront the big wall between jurisdiction and nations.

My Narration

Participating in criminal trials seems gorgeous and easy. However, they have a huge possibility to verdict correctly. The most important part of the juries' role is checking on placing too much power in the government's prosecutorial hands. According to the Solomon J.M., juries are important as Juries more often than not bring a common sense and a collective wisdom that would be missing if we relied on judges alone. The jury's capacity as a political institution and a public voice may well be part of the client's thinking. Let's take an example. If I had a problem but my attorney cannot understand my thought, I cannot exert my opinion about my behavior exactly and will get inappropriate punishment. In that case, if the juries understood my feelings, they will work for me. Also my satisfaction of jurisdiction will be increased. It could not be done if there were not juries who have another aspects of seeing incident from judges.

People already know that civic participation in jurisdiction is faint. As the essay (I referred before) said, civic participation in jurisdiction means exerting national opinion in the process of judgement. Before this system was implemented, nations should get punished according to the judgement rendered by a judge and the law. It occur many problems. Let's think about the situation that a man is caught because of murder committed because of personal reason. Although he has a reason for his behavior, it cannot be accepted in the aspects of law. Since the law and the judges tend to consider results more importantly than the motivation they did so. Also if the dock want to reveal his of her innocent, they should adduce the evidence to plead self-defense. It is hard because most of their motivation is related to emotional factors. Therefore, most of them are easy to be frustrated. However, if in this situation, there were juries, they could understand the dock's motivation. Since juries do not need to consider the exact evidence and they are on the aspects of the public. They can understand the dock's opinion emotionally and agree with their opinion freely. It may help the decrease of falsely charged person. Also people's satisfaction of jurisdiction will be increased. Because it will more contain the thoughts of the public through mirroring juries' opinion which represent the public's opinion. Therefore, we can say that civic participation in criminal trials also connect nations and jurisdictions or judgments.

Then, it can solve the problem that nations are indifferent to jurisdiction. As we are under the law used to judge, we should pay attention to the judgement. However, many people do not concern about that because they think trial and judgement is far from them. Or some people were irritated with the system that nations cannot participated in trials. They say civic participation in criminal trials should increase the degree of attention people pay for our jurisdiction and it will lead to develop of Korean Jurisdiction.

Although some people say civic participation in criminal trials lead to many problems and it is not fit for judgement, civic participation in criminal trials should exist to get acceptable results, to reflect more nations' opinions to jurisdiction or to make people participate in jurisdiction. 

Week 6 : The Introduction

Everyday lots of disputes occur around us and sometimes they leads to the trial.  Most of conflict were solved through a civil trial and people who commit a crime are sentenced to some years in a criminal trials. It was taken for granted just accepting judges' judgments since people do not know about the appropriate punishment for the crime exactingly. However, people always had a dissatisfaction to their punishment and wanted to participated in the process of the judgement. Because they thought they have a right to participate in the trial since they are nation under the law which is used to judge and they are influenced by that law. Therefore, Korean government created a system, Civic Participation in Criminal Trials. It made people to achieve their wish to communicate with the jurisdiction and works well as the steppingstone of the national participation. Also by doing that, nations can get more acceptable judgments. With these merits, Civic Participation in Criminal Trials should exist.



1. Attention grabber -
I attracted the audience by describing a fact that trial is necessary to solve the problems occur in our societies and the kinds of trials according to the kinds of criminals.

2. Explains the topic -
I said the flaw of existing trials (it does not contain nations' opinion) and claim Civic Participation in Criminal Trials as the solution of it.

3. My thesis -
To get more acceptable judgments, Civic Participation in Criminal Trials should exist.

Research 3

Source:

About Jury Service

http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/JuryService/about-jury-service.aspx

My Topic:
Civic participation in Criminal Trials should exist.

What I hope to learn from this source:
I want to find the information about the jury system which is implemented in America.

Notes:
1. Selection of Jurors - 
  -random selection from lists of registered voters, or combined lists of voters and people with drivers licenses.
  -reviewing the questionnaires.
  -the court randomly selects individuals to be summoned to appear for jury duty.
  -questions to determine their suitability to serve on the jury, a process called voir dire.

 2.Petit (Trial) Jury
   - A civil petit jury is typically made up of 6 to 12 persons
   -role in civil trial : to listen to the evidence presented at a trial, to decide whether the defendant injured the plaintiff or otherwise failed to fulfill a legal duty to the plaintiff, and to determine what the compensation or penalty should be
    -role in criminal trial : decide whether the defendant committed the crime as charged. The sentence usually is set by a judge.

Final Thoughts:
This source is good to know the process of selecting the jurors in American trials. As the civic participation in criminal trials was derived from the jury system of America, I thought that I can use this source to comparing two systems. Especially, I was shocked to the fact that in America, they select the jurors randomly (it is same as Korea) and do more process to determine their suitability. I think they consider jury's role more important than us. This fact can be used to support the opponents opinion (we can't believe the jury's suitability)

Research 2

Source:
Consider the Jury's Political Role
http://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2012/12/consider-the-jurys-political-role.html

My Topic:
Civic participation in Criminal Trials is beneficial.

What I hope to learn from this source:
I want to find the benefit of Civic Participation in Criminal Trials - it is the citizens' political action. We can grow civic engagement through participating this policy.

Notes:

1. The Political Role of the Civil Jury - It is a examine placing too much power in the government's prosecutorial hands.


2. If We Took the Jury's Political Role Seriously - many things will be different

           1) More Willingness to Go to Trial - the jury's capacity as a political institution and a public voice = part of the client's thinking.

           2)We Would Do Post-Verdict Interviews Every Time the Law Allows - propose a model that would allow juries to opt in (most will) by providing a preferred means of contact to the judge

           3)We Would Treat Mock Trials As Anything But "Mock" ( often, their pride seems to stem from the belief that, even if it is an adversarial exercise owned by one party or the other, it is still part of the calculation that may lead to a resolution of the case )

  The role of the juries is very important. Therefore, we have to let them participate in criminal trials.

Final Thoughts:

This source is interesting. I think it can be used to reason my opinion and rebut the opposites' idea. Especially the jury's role : examining placing too much power in the government's prosecutorial hands is very fresh. I can use this fact in both sides. I was happy to find this fact because it perfectly support my opinion with related to the purpose of implementing this system.
But I think I did not understand this material wholly. (Because of this reason, I couldn't perfectly summarize this material in my words.) Therefore, It cannot be used a lot. But it is good resource

Research 1

Source:
Emphasize the Civic Role of Your Civil Trial
http://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2014/07/emphasize-the-civic-role-of-your-civil-trial.html

My Topic:
Civic Participation in Criminal Trials should exist since it has many benefits.

What I hope to learn from this source:
I want to find the reason that support my opinion or the fact that rebut opponent's opinion.

Notes:

1. Ask for Larger Juries : the larger and more representative jury offers a more inclusive and dynamic public space
2. Ask for Unanimity. In trials with a required unanimous verdict, jurors deliberate longer and harder  
3. Play Up the Organization. we shouldn't try to make the organization disappear altogether. If the case is just person versus person, then jurors are less likely to put the case in the kind of frame that would emphasize their own community voice.
4. Play Up the Political. Look at what values are at play in your case and ask, "How will this jury's verdict impact the community?"
5. Get seriousness. You are the community's voice in determining what we do and don't allow in the marketplace. As a group, this jury provides the decisive word on whether we still embrace personal responsibility or not. Both companies involved in this case, the judge and the community at large, have come to you asking for that vital ingredient: common sense. 

Final Thoughts:

This source is perfect to support my opinion - rebutting the opponents' idea. Especially, It can support the opinion that we can remove the flaws of practicing Civic participation in Criminal Trials through doing these things. Also I need more sources to support my reason that practicing Civic Participation in Criminal Trials is benefit.

Week3 : Classical Argument Outline

1. The introduction, which warms up the audience, establishes goodwill and rapport with the readers, and announces the general theme or thesis of the argument.

I will start by describing the situation everyone is already familiar with: Trial is necessary to solve the problems occur in our societies and the kinds of trials according to the kinds of criminals. Then I will say the flaw of existing trials (it does not contain nations' opinion) and claim Civic Participation in Criminal Trials as the solution of it.

2. The narration, which summarizes relevant background material, provides any information the audience needs to know about the environment and circumstances that produce the argument, and set up the stakes-what’s at risk in this question. In academic writing, this often takes the form of a literature review.

I will summarize the research I've done and provide an explanation for political roles of civil juries and their good points in judging.

3. The confirmation,which lays out in a logical order (usually strongest to weakest or most obvious to most subtle) the claims that support the thesis, providing evidence for each claim.

I will write this part highlighting the impacts of the jury. And I will support my opinion by citing Professor Solomon's opinion.

4. The refutation and concession, which looks at opposing viewpoints to the writer’s claims, anticipating objections from the audience, and allowing as much of the opposing viewpoints as possible without weakening the thesis.

The audience will say that The juries are mislead by barristers' techniques as to strength of evidence. And insufficient intellect of the jury. I will rebut their opinion by referring their criteria of judging and their advantages.

5. The summation, which provides a strong conclusion, amplifying the force of the argument,  and showing the readers that this solution is the best at meeting the circumstances.

I will close with a summary of my previous points, and highlight the motive of this system (civic participation in criminal trials) by saying this system was implemented because of people's eager.

Week3 : Articulating my argument

1) My argument
I want to argue that Civic Participation in Criminal Trials should exist. The Civic Participation in Criminal Trials Act was introduced to Korea in 2008. Since then, there are various public opinion opposing  implementation this policy. Therefore, I decided to write this pursuasive essay ,"Civic Participation in Criminal Trials should exist", to persuade the opponents by listing the profit of this policy.


2) How I found my argument 
My first research question was Civic Participation in Criminal Trials should exist. My first research helped me to support my opinion that we can remove the flaws of practicing Civic participation in Criminal Trials through doing things proposed in the research sources.


3) New research questions 
I have several questions that need to be resolved.
a) What is the benefits of implementing Civic Participation in Criminal Trials.
b) Why some people oppose this policy?
c) What is the thing which can be used to rebut their opinion.
I'll continue browsing the internet and looking for interesting articles and keeping track of my research with blog posts.

4) Connections to the Harvard Sampler 
This argument is very related to the Harvard Sampler. The most important point used to argue about the justification of enforcing Civic Participation in Criminal Trials is "human mind". As the trials is derived from juries' mind, we have to pay many attentions when we judge the  properness of their trials or justificaion of their qualification. My argument will deal with those content. Therefore, this argument is very connected to the Harvard Sampler.