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.