zmontgo (PRO)We should abolish trial by jury for multiple reasons. The most prominent is that, although they are there for the idea of complete fairness, people are easily manipulated. They can bring in someone who looks dirty and looks like he has been living under a bridge, and they are less likely to think that they are trustworthy, and therefore are more likely to vote against them. A more fair method would be proving they are guilty by data and statistics, setting it up for the computer or a larger group of people (not a jury, subject to the mistakes the person says because they are nervous, or the skillful speech of the attorney) who will look at the evidence and vote what they think, perhaps online. As stated, they are subject to the other jury's talk, the attorney's speeches, and even the judge. Cold, hard facts will get the truth, and that is far better than a guaranteed bias group.
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-09-17 13:43:04
| Speak Round
realdon_762 (CON)Thanks to zmontgo for accepting the challenge and I look forward to a spirited debate. For the purposes of this debate, I will assume that "we" is referring to the United States government.
Trial by jury should NOT be abolished, for the following reasons:
1. A jury trial is a constitutional right in the United States. Abolishing trial by jury would require a constitutional amendment, which would disrupt the U.S. legal and political system and abrogate a right that our forefathers wisely included as part of the fundamental canon of liberties.
2. A jury trial allows citizens, rather than government officials, to provide an independent check on the actions of prosecutors and police. No matter how unbiased most judges try to be, it will always be difficult for a judge to "bite the hand that feeds them." The original understanding of the jury system included its role as trier of law, i.e. allowed the jury to not only find the facts, but also to acquit the defendant if the law was considered to be unjust or a violation of citizens' rights, or if the punishment would be disproportionate.
3. The jury system, especially in politically controversial cases, is substantially less subject to bias or political pressure. In many parts of the world, judges are elected. An unpopular verdict could cost a judge their seat, whereas citizen juries under anonymity are able to render a verdict based on the facts. An unjust verdict of conviction can always be overturned by a judge, if the jury itself is subject to bias or pressure. However, the jury provides an extra layer of protection and prevents scenarios where judges are convicting defendants in order to avoid being pegged as "soft on crime" in the next election.
Also, my opponent's (vague) counterplan is either not feasible or is simply a minor reform, not an abolition, of the jury system.
If my opponent is arguing that trial by computer be developed to replace the jury system, this is not feasible. The resolution states that the jury system should be abolished - and the presumption is that "abolished" means "abolished immediately" unless otherwise specified. Therefore, my opponent is really arguing that the jury trial system should be abolished, and replaced with trial by judge, until this system of computer trials is invented, and my arguments pointing out the problems with a judge trial apply. Also, creating a computerized system of trials would only judge the facts, not the law, and thus would not provide the independent check on government action that the jury system creates. This system could also be abused; the programming could be biased, and on a different note - would you really trust a computer to make a life or death decision? Is this vague proposal of a future technology really better than a time-tested system which has protected the liberties of free people for centuries?
My opponent's proposal of a "larger group of people" who would "look at the evidence and vote what they think" is called a jury. By definition, a jury is a "body of persons legally selected and sworn to inquire into any matter of fact and to give their verdict according to the evidence." (Merriam-Webster). If my opponent is simply proposing that a jury be presented with written evidence and legal instructions, rather than being physically present for a trial, then my opponent also negates the resolution, and has conceded the debate by not presenting an argument for ABOLISHING the system of jury trials.
Also, my opponent notes the possible of pressure from a biased judge, which is interesting because ABOLISHING the jury system, which my opponent is supposed to be arguing for, would place that judge not only in the position of applying pressure, but would allow the judge to totally control the verdict.
For these reasons, I urge a CON ballot and affirm that the jury system should NOT be abolished.
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-09-17 16:05:17
| Speak Roundzmontgo (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-09-24 16:06:01
| Speak Roundrealdon_762 (CON)All arguments extended.
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-09-25 03:51:29
| Speak Round
Judge: nzlockie