PROPOSITION { JANINE RYAN }
SPEECH AND DEBATE
The Big Debate :
“ THIS HOUSE WOULD ABOLISH THE SYSTEM OF TRIAL BY JURY ”
Welcome to The Big Debate , a new regular feature where we ask experts to put forward arguments for one of the issues recently debated at an ESU Competition . For this edition , we have asked Alex Just , Speech and Debate Team Leader ; and Janine Ryan , Speech and Debate Competitions Officer from here at Dartmouth House to lead the way .
PROPOSITION { JANINE RYAN }
I
am strongly in favour of abolishing the system of trial by jury and there are three fundamental arguments supporting the reasons why : 1 . Judges are trained to process legal arguments Judges will have seen similar cases before and will have a better understanding of the nuances involved . They are better able to understand complex arguments and therefore can reach better and faster decisions . Faster decision-making will be more efficient for our courts .
2 . Judges are better equipped to be objective
Juries are emotionally driven . They are not trained to distance themselves from sensitive cases , and are much more likely to be swayed by emotional factors . Juries are also more easily influenced by media reporting . They will often have seen information and formed opinions about a case in the papers before they are called to be on the jury , and therefore , it is difficult to detach themselves from those pre-conceived opinions . It is also incredibly disruptive to jurors ’ lives . Many have to take weeks out , sometimes away from home and their families . This often makes jurors ’ resentful and just eager for it to end which is not in the best interests of fair and objective decision-making .
Juries are emotionally driven . They are not trained to distance themselves from sensitive cases , and are much more likely to be swayed by emotional factors .
Whereas with a judge , this is simply their job so they don ’ t face the same disruption , and as a result do not have the same sentiments . 3 . Trial by jury is costly and inefficient Even minor offences need a 12-person jury . That means paying for food , travel , loss of earnings etc ., for 12 people . This is an inefficient way to run our legal system . Given a judge has to be present anyway , we would be better putting that funding into more judges to clear the backlog in our legal system , or providing more legal aid services .
22 | dialogue