Week 11 : Self Evaluation

1. I think I deserve 1 points. I included all elements of the classical argument. However, my research was short to support my opinion.

2.    1) I think I wrote appropriate amount of first draft.
       2) As my research materials were small amount, I could not support my opinion logically. It seems choplogic.

3.    1) My confirmation was good. I think I support my opinion in various aspects with a research material
       2) My conclusion was bad. It was hard to me that writing essay not saying the thesis again. Also I think I could not close my first draft perfectly.

4. I think I have to pay more attention to do research more and find the materials which help me to support my opinion logically. Also, I think giving an outline of the event is important. Although I chose conclusion part as the most bad part, actually all parts have a fault. If I gave an outline of the event rightly, I could write most of the part rightly. Also, my draft will be consistent.

5. November 16.

First Draft

Civic Participation in Criminal Trials should exist.

Everyday lots of disputes occur around us and sometimes they leads to the trial.  Most of conflicts 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.


Participating in criminal trials seems gorgeous and easy. However, they have a huge possibility to verdict correctly. The most important part of the jury' role is checking on placing too much power in the government's prosecutorial hands. According to the Solomon J.M., jury are important as Jury 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 jury 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 jury 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 jury, they could understand the dock's motivation. Since jury 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 jury' 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. 


Perhaps the most important part of discussing civic participation in criminal trials is the impacts of jury. They play important role in issuing a reprint. As the judicature created the jury 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.
People always had complaint about some judgment and seek the judgment which coincide with their opinion. As time goes on, people felt more longing, maintaining their right to asserting their opinion to the jurisdiction. Because of this reason, the civic participation in criminal trials system was implemented. It is the best plan for compensating people's dissatisfaction of the judgment caused by communication gap between the public and the judicature. People went into feeling more satisfaction by counting their opinion through the jury. Then, what if there is no system like this? Innocent person can get punished inappropriately. Since the judicature can misunderstood the situation. Therefore, the public and the jurisdiction can be connected by this system. Rather than seeing Civic participation in criminal trials as the imprudent system, seeing it as the link between the public and the jurisdiction is better.

To communicate with them and change their heart, Korean government implemented civic participation in criminal trials system. Therefore, we can see important roles of jury that represent the public. They can reflect the opinion of the public. It leads to increase of  the nations' satisfaction toward the judgement. Also jury 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, jury 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, jury are paid fixed amount of money. Therefore, in the same situation that should participate in trials, jury 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 jury 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, jury 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 jury.

Although some people doubt the jury' importance and the qualification of them, jury 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.


As the system, Civic participation in criminal trials, was implemented recently, many people are against the system because of the certainty of benefit of implementing it. The opponents say they cannot believe the jury because they are easily mislead by barristers' techniques as to strength of evidence and they have little information of the law. Also, according to Randle and Pottle's writing, jury are helping a spy to escape from prison. It can be inferred that the opponents are doubting the jury ability to reach a verdict. They can have no faith in justice of the jury as they are selected randomly. However, It is important reason why the jury are needed in criminal trials. As the jury are comprised of randomly selected people, they have different jobs each other. It means the jury have more various knowledge than the judges, and they can understand wide scope of cases. Actually, it became the problem that the judges who only studied about liberal arts subjects cannot understand the dispute occur based on natural sciences. Therefore, the jury's work knowledge will be helpful to judge. If they get the docks' point and judge properly, it will lead to appropriate punishment, preventing the judges from misunderstanding. These jury's verdicts came from their own standards to judge. They are comprised of the people who over 20 years old. According to Korean law, they are considered as the people who already have ability to do decision making based on their own criteria. Therefore, we can believe their verdict since it was arise from the jury' own standard to judge the docks' guilt. Although barristers daze the jury with various techniques, the jury have ability to distinguish them. So it is no matter worrying that the jury will be blinded. 
The opponents also believe that the jury's verdict helps spy to escape from prison. It is not true because the final judgment is consist of the jury's verdict and the judge's judgment. The motive of Civic participation in criminal trials comes from the citizens jury system. However, it was implemented differently from the United States. Therefore, the judge do not have to consider the jury's verdict, otherwise the citizens jury system. It means the jury just play role as the adviser who understand the incident in different aspects and provide the opinion of the public, and we can't hold their responsible. Although some people doubt the jury's suitability for participating in trials, the jury are necessary because they play important role as the adviser by asserting the opinion of the public. Therefore, civic participation in criminal trials should exist.


People always had complaint about some judgment and seek the judgment which coincide with their opinion. As time goes on, people felt more longing, maintaining their right to asserting their opinion to the jurisdiction. Because of this reason, the civic participation in criminal trials system was implemented. It is the best plan for compensating people's dissatisfaction of the judgment caused by communication gap between the public and the judicature. People went into feeling more satisfaction by counting their opinion through the jury. Then, what if there is no system like this? Innocent person can get punished inappropriately. Since the judicature can misunderstood the situation. Therefore, the public and the jurisdiction can be connected by this system. Rather than seeing Civic participation in criminal trials as the imprudent system, seeing it as the link between the public and the jurisdiction is better.

Week 10 : Conclusion

My Conclusion 1

People always had complaint about some judgment and seek the judgment which coincide with their opinion. As time goes on, people felt more longing, maintaining their right to asserting their opinion to the jurisdiction. Because of this reason, the civic participation in criminal trials system was implemented. It is the best plan for compensating people's dissatisfaction of the judgment caused by communication gap between the public and the judicature. People went into feeling more satisfaction by counting their opinion through the jury. Then, what if there is no system like this? Innocent person can get punished inappropriately. Since the judicature can misunderstood the situation. Therefore, the public and the jurisdiction can be connected by this system. Rather than seeing Civic participation in criminal trials as the imprudent system, seeing it as the link between the public and the jurisdiction is better.

Week 9 : Refutation and Concession

1. What is my thesis?
To get more acceptable judgments, Civic Participation in Criminal Trials should exist.

2. What is the opposite position?
Civic participation in criminal trials is not necessary.

3. What arguments can I anticipate?
a) The juries are mislead by barristers' techniques as to strength of evidence. b)Insufficient intellect. Cannot follow complicated tax or fraud cases. c) Randle and Pottle, helping a spy to escape from prison

4. How will I counter those arguments?

a) juries are also have their own standard to judge against barristers' techniques. b) they have various kinds of knowledge. c) judges' opinion is also included.

My Refutation and Concession

As the system, Civic participation in criminal trials, was implemented recently, many people are against the system because of the certainty of benefit of implementing it. The opponents say they cannot believe the juries because they are easily mislead by barristers' techniques as to strength of evidence and they have little information of the law. Also, according to Randle and Pottle's writing, juries are helping a spy to escape from prison. It can be inferred that the opponents are doubting the juries ability to reach a verdict. They can have no faith in justice of the juries as they are selected randomly. However, It is important reason why the juries are needed in criminal trials. As the juries are comprised of randomly selected people, they have different jobs each other. It means the juries have more various knowledge than the judges, and they can understand wide scope of cases. Actually, it became the problem that the judges who only studied about liberal arts subjects cannot understand the dispute occur based on natural sciences. Therefore, the juries' work knowledge will be helpful to judge. If they get the docks' point and judge properly, it will lead to appropriate punishment, preventing the judges from misunderstanding. These juries' verdicts came from their own standards to judge. They are comprised of the people who over 20 years old. According to Korean law, they are considered as the people who already have ability to do decision making based on their own criteria. Therefore, we can believe their verdict since it was arise from the juries' own standard to judge the docks' guilt. Although barristers daze the juries with various techniques, the juries have ability to distinguish them. So it is no matter worrying that the juries will be blinded. 
The opponents also believe that the juries' verdict helps spy to escape from prison. It is not true because the final judgment is consist of the juries' verdict and the judge's judgment. The motive of Civic participation in criminal trials comes from the citizens jury system. However, it was implemented differently from the United States. Therefore, the judge do not have to consider the jury's verdict, otherwise the citizens jury system. It means the jury just play role as the adviser who understand the incident in different aspects and provide the opinion of the public, and we can't hold their responsible. Although some people doubt the jury's suitability for participating in trials, the jury are necessary because they play important role as the adviser by asserting the opinion of the public. Therefore, civic participation in criminal trials should exist.