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.   

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.