The Instigator
Sara_Hayes0825
Con (against)
The Contender
Some_Confused_Kid
Pro (for)

Allowing Citizens To Take Part In A Jury

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Some_Confused_Kid has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2017 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 355 times Debate No: 99153
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Sara_Hayes0825

Con

Citizens should not be able to be a part of a jury.
Some_Confused_Kid

Pro

I accept,I believe allowing citizens to take part in a jury is important. Good luck and have fun.
Debate Round No. 1
Sara_Hayes0825

Con

I believe that it does give citizens a responsibility, but I don't believe that it's fair to let a group of civilians to make a decision that determines the fate of someone else. There are probably numerous cases in which someone's life changed for the worse and was punished, all because there argument wasn't convincing enough, but were actually completely innocent. I would much rather prefer people who are educated in fields that relate to law and crime, then randomly picked people. I think it's much more safer and and reliable that way. When I say safer, I don't mean to prevent someone from getting shot or injured. I am referring to the safety of someone else's freedom. Would you rather have a group of total strangers or a group of people who have been educated with related topics, to determine your fate? What if you were sentenced to death or put to life by a group of people that most likely don't have occupations that deal with situations such as one you are in, and you were completely innocent? How would you feel? (Hypothetically speaking) Wouldn't you rather have people that deal with the kind of things the case involves to make that decision? For an example, let's say you are in the middle of town on a jog and you fall into a ditch. You soon realize your leg is broken and head is severely cut. You start yelling for help. To people approach you. One person has the occupation of a receptionist and the other person specializes in the medical field. Both of the people offer to help. They both argue over what is the right thing to do for your situation. They both claim their idea is the right one. You are only able to receive help from one person. Who are you willing to accept help from?
(I do realize this situation is unrealistic in some aspects)
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Some_Confused_Kid 1 year ago
Some_Confused_Kid
Do you mind putting up your argument pls. I will explain one reason why it prevents tyranny. Tyranny is oppressive power being exerted by the government. Or even by one individual. Jury Trials prevent tyranny be giving the people the absolute power.
Posted by Sara_Hayes0825 1 year ago
Sara_Hayes0825
Yes it's important to have people serve in a jury and yes it gives citizens a responsibility, but I wouldn't want someone, who most likely isn't educated in this field, to determine my fate. I think it's more unsafe that way.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.