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.