Everyday lots of disputes occur around us and sometimes they leads to the trial. As we know, there are two types of the trials. Most conflicts were solved through a civil trial and people who commit a crime are sentenced to some years in a criminal trials. Accepting judges' judgments was taken for granted since people do not exactingly know about the criteria of appropriate punishment for the crime. However, people always had a dissatisfaction to their punishment and wanted to participate in the process of the judgement especially in the criminal trials. Because they thought they had a right to participate as they are the nation under the law that is used to judge, and they are influenced by that law. Therefore, Korean government created a system, Civic Participation in Criminal Trials. It makes people achieve their wish to communicate with the jurisdiction and works well as the stepping stone 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 responsibility to verdict correctly in the terms of the public. The most important part of the jury' role is to check the decision excepting the public's opinions and make those opinions to be included in the judgment. According to the Solomon J.M., jurors are important because they bring a common sense and a collective wisdom when they judge. It makes the jurors see the incident in different aspects from the jurists and empathize the docks. Let's take an example. If my attorney cannot understand me, I cannot exert my opinion about my false behavior exactly and I will get inappropriate punishment. In that case, if there is the jurors who can understand my feelings, they will work for me and they will judge considering my opinions. Then, my satisfaction of jurisdiction will be increased. It could not be done if there were not jury who have other aspects of seeing incident from judges.
People already know that civic participation in jurisdiction is faint. It should be changed. 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 occurs many problems. Let's think about the situation that a man is caught because of a murder committed because of the 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 wants to reveal his or her innocent, they should adduce the exact evidence. It is hard because most of their motivation is related to the emotional factors. Therefore, most of them are easy to be frustrated. However, if there were jurors in this situation, they could understand the dock's motivation. Since the jury does not have to follow the rule of the law by just considering the exact evidence and ignoring their emotional motivation, 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's opinion which represents the public's opinion. Therefore, we can say that civic participation in criminal trials connects nations and jurisdictions or judgments.
Then, it can solve the problem that nations are indifferent to jurisdiction. As we are under the law that is 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 participate in trials. They say the government should increase the degree of attention people pay for our jurisdiction through implementing civic participation in criminal trials, and it will lead to the development of Korean Jurisdiction.
Although some people say civic participation in criminal trials leads 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 and to make people participate in jurisdiction.
To communicate with the public, Korean government implemented civic participation in criminal trials system. Therefore, we can see an important role of jury that represent 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 suffer from the principle of evidential justice since less exact evidences cannot be accepted in the aspects of the law. So, the person who is innocent but only has emotional evidence will be punished inappropriately. However, jury is 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,
lawyers tend to pay more attention to the monetary aspects of the litigation than answers for wrongs. On the other hands, jury are paid a fixed amount of money. Therefore, in the same situation that they should participate in trials, jurors will do more seriously than the lawyers. Trial is the most important process of solving the problem so it should be progressed seriously. However, when the jury did not participate in the trials, the judgments were given with the lawyers who negligent at proving wrongs and the judges who sentence a punishment by just taking account of those lawyers' opinion. Now, jurors are blocking these bad results by asserting their opinion toward the judicature. It is same as closing the judicature's scamper which is 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 misled by barristers' techniques to strengthen their 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 doubt the jury's 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 the jury are needed in criminal trials. As the jury is 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 a 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 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 an ability to do decision making based on their criteria. Therefore, we can believe their verdict since it arise from the jury's standard to judge the docks' guilt. Although barristers confuse the jury with various techniques, the jury has the 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 consisted of the jury's verdict and the judge's judgment. The motive of Civic participation in criminal trials comes from America's jury system. However, it was implemented differently from the United States. Therefore, the judge does not have to consider the jury's verdict unlike the citizens jury system. It means the jury just play a role as the an 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 is necessary because they play an important role as the adviser by asserting the opinion of the public. Therefore, civic participation in criminal trials should exist.
People always had a complaint about some judgment and seek the judgment that 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 misunderstand 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 a link between the public and the jurisdiction is better.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography
1. http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/essays/jury-system-criminal.php
2. http://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2012/12/consider-the-jurys-political-role.html
3. http://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2014/07/emphasize-the-civic-role-of-your-civil-trial.html
4. http://www.legalsource360.com/index.php/evaluating-the-use-of-juries-within-the-british-legal-system-3-7598/
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography
1. http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/essays/jury-system-criminal.php
2. http://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2012/12/consider-the-jurys-political-role.html
3. http://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2014/07/emphasize-the-civic-role-of-your-civil-trial.html
4. http://www.legalsource360.com/index.php/evaluating-the-use-of-juries-within-the-british-legal-system-3-7598/
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기