Amazon.com Widgets

This House believes that juries should be abolished in criminal trials.

Asked by: Savourymuffin123
  • Juries can be biased and easily influenced

    They can be bribed, as the jury members gets paid next to nothing. If there is a very emotive lawyer with weaker points than a restrained lawyer who presents stronger facts than they may sway towards emotive lawyer because they like that lawyer. This is not fair because the facts are what happened and if the suspect is innocent or guilty, not the way they are presented.

  • A jury of peers is essential to the balance of power

    Juries can be biased that's why the selection system is so strict but the system can also be just biased.
    The reason juries are essential is that the decision should be multisource. The defence and prosecution give their case. Then you get different interpretations from all members while they're discussing the case. This makes it less biased not more.

  • Juries are biased

    Juries are not professionals in law like the judges and lawyers attending. They are normal civilians they can't tell if someone was framed or actually guilty. They cannot assess the evidence like judges. For example, someone got framed for helping North Korea get government files. News headlines traitors! Juries won't know they're framed they just go with the news.

  • Yes we should

    Juries are people. Don't you know that? People are always biased in some ways including those people. That way the judgement may be very unfair since opinions from the juries are considered to it. Because of bribes and every problems in the society, isn't it so true that that juries shouldn't be in the court? Therefore, I strongly believe that juries should be abolished in criminal trials.

  • J j j

    H g f d cd ca dm md m dm m cm dc m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m x x xx x x x x x x x x x z \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

  • , kkkkk j

    K j n j h g v g v gh y g h h g hb h h b h g g h h h b b hg g s x a a x \xiwqfdiqfiew fe f eiw fiew f wew fe f e few fh ewi fi fqe f eif eiaq

  • Juries are abolished

    Bruh they change minds quickly in a trial and if the witness is crying they might cry and not say that the criminal did nothing but that he is evel and did something bad.And they are not used to bringing criminals in jail while judjes are used to it. Bruh

  • Jury service can be a stressful process.

    It is not only in the interest of fairness for the defendant that trial by Jury should be abolished but also for the mental of the Jury members. In cases of serious/violent crimes the Jurors can be threatened by family members of the criminal which is very distressing. Therefore Jury members are sometimes given police protection however this impacts on family life and involves innocent people in stressful work with which they should not need to be bothered.

  • The final decision may not be fair.

    Juries can be very biased and far too easily influenced. I do not think juries are necessarily always bad and that thy should be banned however. For criminal trials, though, they can be way too biased.
    Or maybe, with twelve in the jury, there could be seven with one decision and the other five with a different decision.

    I am not too sure about the topic - the motion is for a future debate - so please let me know your opinions.

  • Absolutely not. It would be a mistake

    Easier for one person to make a mistake/be influenced by bias or emotion, than to convince a jury of 12 to make a mistake. Because that is the advantage of a jury of 12: it reduces the chance that a mistake of fact will be made. It may be that one or two on the jury don't believe the witness or the defendant but that all 12 will be wrong is unlikely. Those who argue for trial by judge will have to accept that judges make mistakes and they are not infallible. But what if the judge makes a mistake of fact, chooses to believe the wrong witness, one that only a minority of the jurors would have believed? There is no remedy for that kind of mistake.

  • Im doing this subject in a high school debate

    Hi I love doctor who Percy Jackson Harry Potter sherrrrrrlockkkkkkkkk supernatural divergent haunger games and I'm borrrrrredddddd oh my god that was my sister I'm doing this subject in an high school debate and I'm weird and annoying and my eyes are all equity and my fashion sense is oh my god sisterrrrrrrrrrrrr

  • A jury of peers is essential to the balance of power

    Juries can be biased that's why the selection system is so strict but the system can also be just biased.
    The reason juries are essential is that the decision should be multisource. The defence and prosecution give their case. Then you get different interpretations from all members while they're discussing the case. This makes it less biased not more.

  • A jury of peers is essential to the balance of power

    Juries can be biased that's why the selection system is so strict but the system can also be just biased.
    The reason juries are essential is that the decision should be multisource. The defence and prosecution give their case. Then you get different interpretations from all members while they're discussing the case. This makes it less biased not more.

  • A jury of peers is essential to the balance of power

    Juries can be biased that's why the selection system is so strict but the system can also be just biased.
    The reason juries are essential is that the decision should be multisource. The defence and prosecution give their case. Then you get different interpretations from all members while they're discussing the case. This makes it less biased not more.

  • Jury service can be a stressful process.

    It is not only in the interest of fairness for the defendant that trial by Jury should be abolished but also for the mental of the Jury members. In cases of serious/violent crimes the Jurors can be threatened by family members of the criminal which is very distressing. Therefore Jury members are sometimes given police protection however this impacts on family life and involves innocent people in stressful work with which they should not need to be bothered.

  • A jury of peers is essential to the balance of power

    Juries can be biased thats why the selection system is so strict but the system can also be just biased.
    The reason juries are essential is because the decision should be multisource. The defense and prosecution give their case. Then you get different interpretations from all members while theyre discussing the case. This makes it less biased not more.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.