Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. ….Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge."Twelve Angry Men, originally written for television by Reginald Rose in 1954 and subsequently adapted for stage (1955), film(1957) and television again (1997), effectively conveys the central importance of the right to a jury trial afforded by Article III of the Constitution as well as Amendments V, VI, and XIV. Focusing on the right to a trial by "an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed," the play/film also addresses related constitutional provisions, including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the right to counsel. More broadly, the play/film embodies the central insight of Alexis De Tocqueville in his classic work Democracy in America, that the jury system is one of the most important political institutions for democratic self government. It educates citizens about the law and legal process, helps them understand their duties as citizens, and in the best case, improves their deliberations as citizens.
— The Supreme Court of the United States, Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
Do you agree or disagree with the statement above? What is another important "political institution"? How are these rights abused, or better yet, misused? Post your response by Monday at 3 p.m. We will further our discussion on this topic and this film after the holiday break. Enjoy your weekend.
I wouldn’t know too much about the jury. In my life, I only knew one person who has served jury duty. However, I do know that the jury is composed of people that are not professionals and have nearly no close ties to the accused so that their judgment is not impaired. If one were to serve on a jury, I would have to believe that one should know the legal process. In that sense, serving on the jury does teach one a lot about the legal process. Jury duty also helps support the democratic cause by showing that it is the people that help carry out the law. The twelve members of the jury are ordinary people that decide on the verdict. This is a very high power given out to common citizens. It shows how much America trusts its democratic policies to work.
ReplyDeleteOther very important political institutions in our country are political parties. The political parties in the United States are essentially what keep America alive as a democratic nation. By the first amendment, one has a freedom to say anything. Because of that, multiple political parties have formed within the United States. If America no longer had its multiple political parties and only had one, then I believe that it is right to think that America is no longer a democracy. From the very beginning, the founding fathers sought to make a governing body that was very large filled with multiple ideals so that no group can become tyrannical and control the government. This is why political parties are so important to America.
As with any privilege, rights of the United States constitution can also be misused or abused. When one is placed into a jury, that person has the power to decide the outcome of the trial. This is literally fate being put into one’s hands. A jury member could exploit this power to get an innocent or a guilty verdict even when the person may very well be the given the opposite sentence of what the jury member might think. This kind of power abuse is not only prominent in the court of law, but in our overall government as a whole. A government position is nothing to be taken lightly. When one is in a very high echelon of government, he or she has an unbelievable amount of power and control. One could definitely take advantage of the situation and take government gains for themselves.
Our American democracy bases itself off of checks and balances. The most obvious form of this democracy is the triangle between our executive, our legislative, and our judicial branches. Each branch is given a special set of powers that other branches do not have. This way, no group can become overpowering of other groups. As citizens of America, one would be wise to remember that having a democracy, is being able to hear the voices of all others. Likewise, in jury duty, one shouldn’t declare the accused as guilty just because of what he or she may be accused of. One should always listen to the story first, and then base their decision off of factual evidence. That is what makes up the people’s democracy.
I believe the Jury system is the very essence of a democracy. A nation is a very complex institution, especially a superpower like the United States, and there are many people that have government jobs to keep the country running. These jobs may be as demanding as that of the presidency, or they may be as simple as that of an office clerk; either way a lot of work goes into running the country. But because any citizen of the United States has the ability to make the ultimate decisions regarding an accused criminal I think that one of the best demonstrations of democracy is jury duty. Citizens may elect their congressmen, congresswomen, and president, giving them a voice in the government, but citizens cannot have as a direct of a voice or presence in a democracy as serving as a member of a jury. And as Ziqi said, serving as a Juror gives citizens the opportunity to learn about their country’s legal system. I also agree with Ziqi that one of the most important aspects of the Jury system is that the power of actually carrying out the law is placed into the hands of the people. One does not have to spend years studying law; a juror convicts or pardons the accused based on his or her’s own principles and intuition.
ReplyDeleteAnother vital political institution in the United States is the Supreme Court. Unlike a jury, each member of the Supreme Court is the best at what they do. They have spent their lives studying the legal system of the United States, and possess a thorough knowledge of the constitution. Their job is to uphold the constitution when judges in lower courts, the jury, or the president or congress fail to do so. Based on the jobs of the judges of the Supreme Court, I think that each judge has more power than any other one person in the nation. What they say goes. Any piece of legislation or policy is at the mercy of the Supreme Court, and any conviction or pardon in lower courts means very little if the Supreme Court decides to take the opposite stance. Compounding these powers, the members of the Supreme Court serve for life. But of course with such powers comes a lot of responsibility, and the ability to irresponsibly abuse those powers. Unlike a judge in lower courts, no one can say that a Supreme Court judge shouldn’t hear a case because of connections with the positive or negative side of that case. If a close relative or friend of a Supreme Court Judge were to have a large financial stake in the outcome of a Supreme Court case, no one could do anything about it except the judge. Clearly power could be abused here. The president also has a lot of power in the appointment of Supreme Court justices. FDR is widely known for attempting to pass legislation that would enable him to pack the Supreme Court with judges favorable to his New Deal policies. No matter who is on the Supreme Court, the people of the United States have very little power over the appointments. Whoever they are, we hope they remain true to the Constitution, no matter what their interpretation of the document is, and that their decisions would be for the best of the country. There are certainly pros and cons to the Supreme Court, but it is still a very important and very powerful political institution in the United States
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteyou said to post our essay/skit on fallacies so here is my skit.
ReplyDeleteNine year old daughter arguing with her mother about fries, fried food and how it is healthy for you
Daughter walks in and sits down at table while thinking deeply and watches her mother
Mom is preparing dinner
Daughter: Mom? Why do you say that fries are unhealthy?
Mom: because they’re fried
Daughter interjects
Daughter: but fries are healthy!
Mom: everything is unhealthy once it is fried
Daughter looks confused, tilts her head
Daughter: but…
Mother: French fries are unhealthy
Daughter: but, but mom! You always say that potatoes are good for you!
Mom stops what she is doing and looks at her daughter cautiously, knowing her words are about to be twisted against her
Mom: yes…
Daughter slowly says what she thinks with a small frown on her face
Daughter: and if potatoes are good for you, since they are such a good source of starch and French fries are potatoes…
Mom interrupts
Mom: French fries are potatoes fried in oil and fat
Daughter bursts out
Daughter: yes, but fries are still potatoes!
Mom patiently explains
Mom: by the time the potatoes are done being fried they are no longer potatoes, but sticks of mushy fat
Daughter stubbornly refuses to give up and sits up straight
Daughter: still…fries are potatoes! and if you left the skin on them and all the vitamins inside the skin, then fries are healthy for you!
Mom goes back to making dinner
Mom: and how did you reach that conclusion?
Daughter triumphantly sums up her logic
Daughter: because potatoes are healthy for you and fries are made of potatoes so that means that fries are healthy for you!
Mom: doctors and nutritionists all say that fried food is unhealthy for you and bad for you body and they know best
Daughter says with distaste
Daughter: I don’t trust doctors or people who heal other people
Mom curious and glances over her shoulder
Mom: and why not?
Daughter says with passion
Daughter: because Rasputin was suppose to be some sort of healer but he only made things worse! And now Anastasia and her brother are dead!
Mom slowly states
Mom: yes but…
Daughter continues
Daughter: and so if Rasputin was a healer and he did bad things then I don’t believe doctors of people who claim to heal other people!
Mom finishes pealing and begins chopping
Mom: doctors say that eating a lot of fried food causes people to have heart attacks
Daughter announces
Daughter: If I were a doctor I would make sure people understood that eating fried food does not lead to heart attacks but the opposite!
Mom confused
Mom: the opposite?
Daughter: yeah! Because I don’t trust doctors so I think the opposite of whatever they say!
Mom: uhhh…
Daughter: so I’ll eat lots of fried food and never get a heart attack!
Mom even more confused at this point and glances at her daughter
Mom: because?
Daughter is in her element and fairly glowing with pride
Daughter: Fried food is healthy for you! Chicken is healthy for people, fried chicken is chicken, so therefore fried chicken is healthy!
Mom: I believe your logic is a tiny bit flawed
Daughter indignantly disagrees
Daughter: no its not! My logic makes perfect sense and can be applied to all fried food which makes all fried food healthy!
Mom exhales loudly, and seems to be at her wits end
Mom: how about we continue this later once your father is home
Daughter happily agrees
Daughter: ok! I want to show him how I solved why fried food is healthy!
Mom continues chopping and says with amusement evident in her voice
Mom: I’m sure he’ll be very impressed
Daughter stands up and moves as if to walk out the door
Daughter: can I go out and play?
Mom quickly affirms eager to have peace and quiet
Mom: yes, yes, run along
Daughter runs outside and mom begins to relax
I am not one to ask much about the Jury. I have known relatives who have had to go to jury, but not much about what they did there. I know that to receive jury duty there is a letter sent out saying the date and time that you are to show up for the trial and that one must go unless they know about the accused and have a judgment or there is a life altering excuse or reasoning. From my understanding this is sent out to all citizens of the state, they must all have jury duty at one point or another in their life. I would hope that most citizens who par take in jury duty know something about the legal process. Jury duty is an exercise of democracy, leaving the final verdict to the members of jury duty, also known as ordinary everyday citizens. It is a great example of how America trusts the people to carry out the laws given.
ReplyDeleteOther important political institution in our country is the Supreme Court. The members of Supreme Court are not ordinary citizens of the U.S. they are trained and well studied individuals who know what they are doing. The Supreme Court deals with the problems when the jury, president and congress are not able to deal with.
The Jury members and Supreme Court members are different in a way. The Jury member’s thoughts are heard though a group of anonymous votes, but being a Supreme Court member when you have an opinion or statement whatever he or she says is what goes. Although the members of Supreme Court have their job for life they have more power over the accused person then the jury does, making it less of a democracy. With being a member of Supreme Court there is a certain amount of responsibly one must attain as well as making mistakes by abusing such power.
From my understanding a judge in a lower court cannot judge the case if they have any connection or emotion with the case at hand, where as when you are a Supreme Court member it doesn’t matter. So if the judge had anything to do with the case he could make the outcome of the case any way he wanted based on what he says, this could be abuse of the powers he is untitled to based on his opinions alone. In conclusion the majority of the United States in hoping that they are faithful to the constitution and do what is better or the entirety of the people trusts the members of the Supreme Court.
I agree with Ziqi when he says one should always listen to the story and base ones decision on the facts/evidence given. I think that this is true and needs to become apart of decisions that are made in court, because sometimes I feel as if decisions are being more based on emotions of the judges or others not the facts or evidence of the case.
Although I do agree that the jury provides a safeguard against the overzealous prosecutor and the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge; I think that the jury does not do all that we intended it do. As seen in the case of the Scottsboro boys, the jury was subject to pervasive bias, even against overwhelming evidence of their innocence. Although the jury protects against the potentially corrupt court officials and lawyers, nothing protects the accused against a biased jury. I think that an extremely important political institution that we have as a country is the bipartisan system. The two political parties: the democrats and the republicans are an effort to make every American have a voice in politics. Through the party system, we have representation, which we fought for during the Revolutionary war. Although the party system has been working well for the past 230 years, I think in the last decade or so, the powers of the two parties have been abused and, more specifically, misused.
ReplyDeleteI feel nowadays the goal of the two parties is to shoot down anything the other one proposes as soon as possible. I believe the sense of “teamwork” and “togetherness” has all but disappeared between the two parties. But, specifically, the two sides use their respective power vetoes to get rid of any bill the other side drafts, or any resolutions they create. The party system is failing because politicians are abusing the power they hold. Politicians are constantly criticizing each other and using any stratagem to make the other party look bad. More than a decade ago, there was a certain decorum between parties, but it seems that such an informal code is now void.
I agree with Matt when he said that the supreme court justices could be significantly manipulated by the president, or other relatives or friends. The judges are simply human like the rest of us, and are susceptible to everything that we are. I think no political institution is perfect, and the supreme court is no exception.
Argument on fallacies
ReplyDeleteMother vs. daughter
Mother: Do you like this skirt?
Daughter: No
Mother: Why not?
Daughter: because it is two long
Mother: I think it is a respectful length
Daughter: you have proved my point
Mother: Please don’t use that tone with me
Daughter: why it’s not like you care
Mother: of course I care
Daughter: About what…. you
Mother: no about you
Daughter: oh I didn’t know
Mother: that is not true you know I love you
Daughter: do I?
Mother: yes I try my best to make you happy
Daughter: well I guess you haven’t been paying much attention me lately
Mother: what is that suppose to mean?
Daughter: you never listen to me
Mother: well I am listening now..
Daughter: yeah a little late for that
Mother: What else do you want me to do?
Daughter: just be in my life
Mother: I am here every day..
Daughter: it sure doesn’t feel like that
Mother: what do you mean by that?
Daughter: why can’t you be like a normal mom, worry about my clothing choice, my hair, what I am doing at school…
Mother: well I am doing everything I can do
Daughter: evidently not..
Mother: I am sorry you feel that way
Personally I do not have much experience with the jury. I haven’t gone to any trials or studied the system that much. All I know is from a 6th grade history section. My mother did have to serve as a county jury two years ago, but I didn’t ask her about it as I didn’t find it very interesting. I have never heard of the movie before either. The quote from The Supreme Court I did agree with. I believe the founding fathers knew that the power of judges and witnesses could be misused and tried to protect against that. I think that the judicial system is one of the most important institutions for democratic self government. It provides every person with the right to a trial and to defend themselves. Every person is called to jury duty so that people not involved or related to the case can judge it impartially. People are learning how to decide and cast verdicts concerning the future of a human being. They learn the process of the law courts, they study the evidence and questioning of the lawyers, they learn to problem solve. Serving on the jury helps them to see what rights an arrested person has.
ReplyDeleteI think another important political institution is the fact that we have so many different parties which represent the different people of America. This means that every American has a voice and can get answer to their questions. People can contact their Governor, Representative(s) and Senators. Americans vote for their Governors, Representatives, Senators, and President. It is their decisions, choices, and thoughts, and votes which designate power to chosen people. Also, no party has more power than another. The checks and balances system makes sure that no decision is made by only one group or person. Another institution is the Supreme Court. One can appeal to the higher court to listen to a case if the outcome is deemed unfair/unjust. If the case is important it goes to the Supreme Court. The levels of judicial authority act in a similar way to the checks and balances of the branches. I feel that these are other important political institutions.
The rights can be abused or misused in a variety of situations. For instance, the Salem Witch Trials were absolutely fake trials, and the judges were really only condemning not judging the accused. Judges who have personal feelings involved in the case have to deal with overcoming them or those feeling affect the verdict. Every person gets a right to a trial, yes, but not every person can receive a just trial. Witnesses swear on the Bible, but some of them still lie. Lawyers can withhold information they think is not important, but the client thinks it is. The accused might not get the chance to talk for themselves. Everyone is supposed to be innocent until found guilty, yet many people rarely actually behave that way. People choose sides once they hear about the trial. They may not be consciously aware of what they are doing, but somewhere in their mind they decide if the person is guilty or not. The people of America do not choose the Supreme Court Justice who could potentially misuse power. I agree with Matt about the Supreme Court and I feel that I said things along the same lines as him. I agree with Ziqi about the levels of power and how someone higher up in power has more power and could therefore have more influence in the outcome. I also like what he said about the different parties as it agreed with what I said.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletemy argument with fallacy:
ReplyDeleteCurrency is the world’s most amazing creation. With the invention of such a tool, people are able to trade, buy, and sell goods to keep up one’s finances. Money can buy nearly anything. Whatever one may desire, money can most likely purchase it. Money is also used as a measurement of worth or value. The more money there is, the more that thing is worth. When you think about it like that, Bill Gates must be worth a lot! Some people may say that money can’t buy happiness, but they’re wrong. Since all objects can be bought, and all objects are nouns, then all nouns may be bought as well. Since happiness is a noun, happiness can be bought! A world without money is a world without control. With no money, the world’s governments would plummet into anarchy. With all these positive contributions that money has made to the world, one can surely state that nothing is better than money.
Still, one can always agree that a peanut butter jelly sandwich is better than nothing. Consider this; you’re in town walking to your favorite spot for a nice lunch when all of a sudden, you realize that you forgot to bring your wallet! Fortunately, the sun smiles upon you because you just so happened to remember that you brought a peanut butter jelly sandwich for lunch. It’s time like these that show how much a peanut butter jelly sandwich can help.
Since it is proven that nothing is better than money, and that a peanut butter jelly sandwich is better than nothing, a peanut butter jelly sandwich is proven to be better than money. Since we all know that nothing is better than money, the next time you’re outside and wanting to buy some random item with money, think first of the thing that’s better than nothing. Think first of the peanut butter and jelly sandwich that is with no doubt, better than money.
I agree with the statements above concerning the role of juries in the life of American citizens. I feel that the jury symbolically represents the core of a democracy, and thus can be considered the most important institution for democratic self government. I would however modify the statement and say rather that the jury is “founded on” the most important institution of a democracy, that the people are the ultimate judges and power holders of fate and the path of the future. In a democracy, politicians must ultimately please the majority of people to maintain representative power, and thus are forced by the power of the people to move in certain directions, and fulfill the wishes of the represented. If they fail, as deemed by the people, then they will be dismissed in a manner as deemed by the people. A jury represents the same principle, that the people are the final judges and decision makers for the future, be it that of the nation or of a single human being on trial. In a democracy, the people are command the power of judgment, whether in politics or justice. In both cases in our nation, the people decide to lend this power to a few, a select who are trusted to carry out the wishes of the people; in politics, the representatives and in justice the justices and authorities.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a jury teaches citizens about their duties to their nation, about the legal system, and on how to make better, fairer decisions. By being a juror one is forced to watch an entire court preceding and thus one learns how the interactions between citizens and the law take place. This role also helps one understand and recognize their responsibility to their nation as a judge of what is right and wrong, and when something can help the nation or when it can hurt it. This added responsibility will force the people of this country to thing longer about their decisions and treat decision making with greater discipline
Another important political institution in this nation is the use of representatives in a representative democracy. As a subset of a democracy, a representative democracy is composed of elected officials who represent the greater population, and who speak for said population to enact reform and policy within and throughout the nation. I believe this institution or idea is important because while the people maintain power, the representatives streamline discussion and debate by accumulating many voices, and molding them into one, powerful voice, heard by the nation and the representatives of other collections of voices. The representatives are like messengers and provide ways for the country to facilitate national debates and discussions in single rooms rather than spread across the prairies and mountains, disconnected and separate.
The institution of a representative format of government is abused by the representatives in one primary way. Many, once elected renege on campaign promises and ignore the wishes of the voices they represent, instead following different paths, contrary to the intentions of those they represent. The solution would be to have no set period of rule per representative, unlike what we have now. This way if representatives did not keep promises and voice the concerns of their bases, the people would have the power to end the representatives run in power. This solution itself has a problem however, because it would force representatives to focus on being popular and liked rather than making difficult, sometimes unpopular decisions.
I agree with Oren and Ziqi that a two-party system is extremely important to our nations successful political stability and functionality. I also agree with Ziqi that being on a jury can help one understand his or her role and responsibility in the legal system
Logical Fallacy Piece
ReplyDeleteParker Gardner
Piro
Reading and Rhetoric: S1
Undistributed Middle Argument + Fallacy.
While pondering the complexities and details of life one fine day I came to an incredible conclusion; that wood can solve word hunger, and that although it does not taste very good, its value to the body will let you learn to savor the flavor.
I came across this realization as I reflected on the effects food has on my mind and body. Food makes me exceptionally joyful and content. I feel every bite of it spreading a bigger smile across my face, and I am never short of the urge for food. It gives me, above all else, the sense of comfort and contentment. Thankfully it is not the sole substance or phenomenon that has such an effect on me. This is a particular relief in light of resent global concerns that food is growing increasingly scarce, and world Hungary is a spreading curse. Where it not for the effects a warm, crackling fire has on my mind and body, I would be in serious distress when regarding the impending lack of food. As it is, a warm crackling fire makes me feel just as content and comfortable as a bite of warm chocolate cake. Fire, and particularly the heat emanating from fire, warms me, and stirs within me the same feeling I get from eating, one of the deepest happiness.
Considering both these aspects of life, fire and food, and the clear, obvious congruency in their effect on me, I am forced to draw the conclusion that they serve the same purpose in my body, and are, in all practical terms regarding the body, one and the same. Food, it follows, must therefore be an internal source of heat for the body, to warm the blood, liquefy the eye juices, and plasticize the tissues.
Heat from this food, in all realms of the physical world, can only be derived and extracted in one way, combustion. This realization, while explaining the source of energy and heat in our bodies, and also the occasional social faux pas of flatulence, is proof positive that food is burned in combustion chambers within the body. Food, after consumption, must be combusted to release its energy in the form of heat, lending that warm, happy feeling to myself and many others.
It thus serves to logic that the best foods are those that yield the most heat; those that are most combustible. Here I lies wood, the key to happiness and hunger, the heart of the future sustainability of our species. Wood is by far the most explosive and combustible substance known to man. Were we to ingest it, we would all be filled with the sense of happiness and warmth that I feel when I consume our current types of food, or sit beside the crackling fire. If we turn to wood as food now, we can spread the word and put an end to hunger and global food shortages as quickly as possible.
I definitely agree with all of the statements about the American Jury system. America could not really be called a true democracy without it. Democracy is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as a “government by the people; especially: rule of the majority.” I think that this definition directly applies to what a jury is. The people chosen to be on a jury could be any person that is a United States citizen, so in most cases, a juror comes into a court room situation not knowing much about how the proceedings work. But being a part of it educates them in how our country works and shows them that an individual really does have a say in the way we run our country. Having juries also ensures that the ideals of the American population are being upheld, as opposed to only the opinions of lawyers and judges. Being part of a jury could also reinvigorate an individual’s sense of pride and belonging to their country because they can see their opinion really matters. Whereas in some cases, even with voting, the result doesn’t feel as connected to you.
ReplyDeleteAnother incredibly important “political institution” that we have is the Bill of Rights. I know this is a very broad topic, and I could have chosen just one out of the ten amendments that it is composed of, but I couldn’t decide which was more important. The reason I couldn’t pick just one is that I have never had any of my rights challenged, so I can’t say which I value more. I would say that each amendment is the most important depending on whom you are speaking to. Therefore the entire Bill of Rights is, as a whole, another important “political institution.” It defines America and is what separates us from other democracies. It gives a person the right to be exactly who they wish to be so long as the person in question gives back to the country by not breaking it’s laws.
With a jury you will always run the risk of people abusing their power, but this doesn’t mean that you won’t find the same risk in other places. Judges, for example, could be just as dangerous. Just look at the plethora of examples of Southern White judges during the Civil Rights Movement Era. Some might go as far to say those judges would be more dangerous than a biased person in a jury. The rest of the dozen can balance out one bad egg, but one bad judge has nothing to be balanced out by. People who think juries are a bad idea, for whatever reason, should remember the definition of a democracy and realize that by not supporting the idea of juries, they are not supporting their country.
I think it is interesting how Matt’s second important political institution is the Supreme Court. They are similar in my mind to a jury except they are a trained permanent version of the many, many juries found all of the US. In a weird way they seem like two siblings that are complete opposites, and it is interesting to see them right next to each other.
I think that I agree with the statement above, that every person has a right to a jury and that the jury is there to make sure that someone isn't wrongly accused. I also think that in the past the role of a jury has been misused because at certain points in history only certain people have been allowed to serve on the jury. An example of this is at certain points in history if a black person went to trial then even if they hadn't committed the crime, the jury would most likely be all white, and mostly racist, so the person being tried would basically be automatically guilty. I think that having a jury definitely helps to deal with people being wrongly accused, but I also thing that having an impartial jury might not necessarily be enough. I think that the government has to make sure that the jury is being fair, and also that the jury isn't being taken advantage of by the person who is being accused of the crime.
ReplyDeleteAnother "political institution" is how the government has checks and balances. There are different groups of people who decide different things and can over rule other groups in a way that puts all the groups on an even playing field. Although this sometimes doesn't really work out the way that some would like it to, having these "checks and balances" can make it so that something will only happen if the majority of these groups agree. I also think that this can be misused - for instance when someone tries to change it so one group or person has more control that the rest. For instance there have been cases where the president has attempted to lessen the power of the other groups that are part of the checks and balance system so that he has more power over decisions.
I think that all different "political institutions" can be gravely misused if the wrong things happen at the wrong time, but I also thing that if we didn't have these "institutions" then we would be a lot worse of than we are now. I think that Matt makes a good point about the jury, and then also comparing it to the supreme court and how in a way they are very very different, but there to uphold the same standards that our country finds really important. I think that that comparison is really interesting and also makes you think about why certain "political institutions" are in place.
The Jury system is one of the most important political institutions for democratic self-government because for many of the reasons listed in the question. It does educate regular day citizens, and improves their deliberation skills. As Matt said, the nation is extremely complex and needs many different “institutions” to help make it run smoothly, which I agree with. It is not solely the President’s job, but it is many other peoples job as well. Which includes the citizens of the U.S, thanks to jury duty. I like Carolyn also think the Supreme Court is another great part of the government. The Supreme Court is of the highest courts in all the U.S, and has the deciding voice over all cases. Kind of like how Ms. Gillespie has the deciding factor over our own HHS council. Something really cool about the Supreme Court is that one you get chosen to be on it, you get to stay for your whole life unless you get removed. The Supreme Court members all have organized seating, which is by seniority. They all have their own special jobs too, like chief justice and associate justice. A difference between the Supreme Court and the jury duty is that the Supreme Court makes money, and the jury duty is a mandatory thing you must do.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s very cool how the U.S. has their government set up. In Geopolitics, we have been watching many different movies on countries where their government is corrupt, or their leader has become somewhat of a dictator. It’s horrific in some of the videos, and I wish all countries could experience the freedom and opportunities regular citizens get to have in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Claudia Noonan
ReplyDeleteOne day a princess was searching for a prince. Her friend, the jester, was accompanying her. The princess went for a walk around the pond by her palace. The princess heard the croaking of a frog in the distance, and remembered that her great-grandfather once had been a bullfrog until kissed by a princess. The princess that found him was her great-grandmother.
“I know who my prince is!” said the princess.
“Who?” Asked the jester.
“My prince is a frog in this pond.”
“How do you know which one is the frog?” The jester asked, looking around the pond and seeing ten different colored frogs.
“Given that my great-grandfather was a bullfrog. My frog must be a bullfrog as well.”
“What color is a bullfrog?” The jester asked.
“The bullfrog must be brown since all princes have brown hair. Therefore, the my bullfrog prince cannot be the red, blue, pink, yellow, green, purple, or orange frogs around the pond.”
“How will you distinguish which brown frog out the remaining three is the bullfrog prince?”
“Since princes can swim, my bullfrog prince must be able to swim too.” The princess replied.
“How will you decipher which frog can swim?”
“I will place the three remaining brown frogs in the pond and see which one can swim.” The princess said.
The princess placed each frog in the water separetly waiting to see if it would swim or drown.
“Since the first and second frog struggled with swimming, and the third frog could swim with no problem, as a result my prince is the third brown frog!” The princess cried.
* I used the Hasty Conclusion fallacy because the princess jumped to the conclusion that the third frog was her prince because it fit two out of the three qualities to be a prince. She needed to kiss the frog for a final conclusion indicator.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was sleeping in my one last night, I had a bizarre dream. In the dream, I woke up in the morning, only to realize that I was late to school. I shoved my breakfast in my throat, grabbed my backpack, and dashed out of the house. I barely made it to school on time. Unfortunately, I was exhausted, so after class began, I fell asleep again. The teacher was talking, but I couldn’t hear, since my head was plopped on my desk. Somehow she didn’t notice, and my classmate woke me up at the end of class and told me what had happened.
ReplyDeleteOnce, in real life, I was late for school, because my alarm didn’t go off. I was terrified. After grabbing my backpack, I sprinted out the door, and I arrived in school shortly after. Once at school I ran in to math class; I barely made it on time. The teacher started talking shortly after I sat in my seat, but the material was so boring I couldn’t pay any attention. My eyelids began droop and I fell asleep. Apparently, the teacher didn’t notice. Instead, one of my students woke me up after class and told me what had happened.
I had a similar experience in real life and in a dream. Both of them involved being late to school, barely arriving in time for class, and then falling asleep during class. Since I experience similar things in a dream and real life, then dreams and life must be the same thing. In other words, life is a dream. We don’t actually exist, it is all part of our imagination.
I used undistributed middle.
ReplyDeleteJury is certainly one of the most important political institutions in our government. Jury helps protect the people from corrupt officials. If one is judged by his or her peers, then he or she has a higher chance of being judged fairly. Without this right we wouldn’t be as much of a democracy. That said, I don’t know much else about jury. I’ve only known one person who has ever served jury duty, and I don’t remember much about it. I do, however, know that jury allows us to learn more about our legal system. It acts as a fair way to judge those accused, while teaching the jury members important lessons about the structure of our democratic government. Jury also provides Americans with a chance to interact with each other and discuss their viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteAnother important “political institution” in our country are the two political parties. They serve much the same role as jury. Both political parties and jury help americans become involved with their government. They provide Americans with an opportunity to choose a viewpoint on an issue, and then debate it with fellow Americans. Much like jury, the party system acts as an “educator” by drawing Americans into politics. Without parties, Americans wouldn’t pay as close attention to politics.
Everybody knows that political power can be misused, and despite our democratic government, power in the United states can be abused. Although we don’t have a dictator, there are many times in history when presidents have stretched their power to meet personal desires. For example, Andrew Jackson assumed many authorities that he didn’t actually have during his presidency, one of which was his assumption that he could kill off Native Americans under his own authority. If too many presidents assume this much authority, we could be in trouble. Another situation that shows abuse of power are mock trials. This is when a judge will pretend to give a fair trial and adequately consider each point of view, but in reality, the judge already knows which side he will choose. Before the Unites States government, these types of trials often occurred when British accused the colonists of crimes but never provided them with a lawyer. If it was a real trial a lawyer would have been provided. In our modern government mock trials are less likely to occur, but it is still likely that judged have a hidden bias even before a case begins. A perfect example would be how white people could get away with mistreating or even killing African Americans. The judges knew that it was illegal to kill an African American, but they tried to find an excuse to find the white man innocent. For example, the judge would often pretend that there wasn’t enough evidence to establish that the white man was guilty, causing the white man to get away with the crime.
As I mentioned earlier, I agree with double Chi and Oren that the two party system is important in our country. Without it, politics would not be the same. I like what Bethany said about the Salem witch trials; It is a perfect example of how power can be abused.
The jury system today represents safety in civilization and involves multiple people reaching a verdict that leads to incarceration or freedom. For I have not experienced it myself, I have a sense of what it entails and how people in society are given the job to bring justice to people in the court system. The jury system in America is a very eminent and effective establishment and is able to inform the people of how the law works and how justice is kept. Given that many don't know much about the legal process, this structure makes citizens understand what their responsibility is to know this information but also familiarize others, so on and so forth. Also, another thing that I know about the jury system is that to be a juror, one must commit to that duty and is penalized if he/she fails to complete her job.
ReplyDeleteAnother substantial political institution in this country is the Census Bureau. When the Census Bureau compiles data to see how many people are living in this country, they need to know that information in order to provide statistics for things like education and healthcare. Also, you can't really set up a representative government without knowing that information because you need data to support it. It is used for allocating funds for the people, setting up districts, etc. Yet on the other hand, politicians misuse them and abuse them by specifically pinpointing places that will be an aid to their run and give them a bigger audience so that they can be re-elected.
Though these two institutions are vastly different, it still in a way deals with the people and government. Still, it is not as much justice that the Census Bureau is dealing with, but the people. When it does deal with the government, I have learned that it helps determine the number of positions in the House of Representatives and also is involved in determining whether or not the number of schools, police departments, etc. are substantial enough.
I definitely believe that the jury system is a key in educating our people and important in the democratic process. First of all, the people of the United States elect these master interpreters of the constitution to make the right decisions. These Supreme Court cases are also vital in understanding certain laws and understanding our rights as people. All Supreme Court cases are very debatable. There is never a one answer solution to a problem. The decisions these judges make will help us to find these answers and to understand what we can and cannot do as citizens. Understanding our rights is extremely important and will help us to be good citizens in our lives. It is in this way that Supreme Court cases help citizens to become better people.
ReplyDeleteAnother important political system is the power and process of the Executive/presidential branch. These parties and presidents have certain beliefs and solve conflicts in their own way. Depending on their policies, people will vote for or support political candidates for president. The only problem with this system though is I feel as if once you elect the president, he can do whatever he wants. Sure he has the House and Senate to limit his power individually, but his decisions as only a single person are extremely influential to what happens to us as a country. Because the president has so much individual power, It can make people feel useless in influencing what is happening in and out of the United States.
With the rights granted to these powers of the president and Supreme Court, it is easy to misuse them or lead away from the democratic system. We rely on these individuals to make the right decisions, but it could be so easy for them to mess up and make a wrong decision. The people of the United States cannot make the important decisions, they can only elect the "right" person and then influence him/her to do certain things. Fortunately, the Senate, House, and other groups also help make sure that these high powerful groups do make the right decisions. We also elect these people. Because the people elect all of these government officials who work together and use checks and balances, we are involved in every decision our government makes. The United States is a democracy because everyone is involved in some way or another.
I like what Ziqi said about how we should all listen to each other in a democracy. The president listens to his people, the house listens, the Supreme Court judges listen to evidence and claims, and we all listen to each other. In listening, we work together and become involved in making our country a better place to live.
Fallacy:
ReplyDeleteA: I love togas
B: Why?
A: Because the romans wore them
B: Why?
A: Because togas are awesome
B: Why?
A: Because the romans wore them
B: Why?
A: Because the romans wore them
B: Why?
A: Because they were smart
B: Why?
A: Because they built the arch
B: Why?
A: Because arches are awesome
B: Why?
A: Because the romans made them
B: Why?
A: Because they were rich
B: Why?
A: Because they had Julius Caesar to conquer the world
B: Why?
A: Because Julius Caesar was awesome
B: Why?
A: Because Julius Caesar wore togas
B: Why?
A: Because togas are awesome
B: Why?
A: Because the romans wore them
B: Why?
A: Because, BECAUSE....... because
A: we should all wear togas so we can be smart, be like Julius Caesar, and be rich just like the romans were
B: Why?
A:.............
False Cause
In a perfect world, I believe that the statement above is true. Unfortunately, our world is not perfect so I disagree, not in all cases, but I do not think the jury is fair at all in some cases. I think in some cases juries promote lawlessness and crime. I do not think the jury educates everyone involved as many people are unenthusiastic and just want to get it over with. Juries are also susceptible to the opinions of the general public, which can be very unfair. For example, in the deep south, when there was even more racism than there is now, african-americans would be convicted of crimes they obviously had not committed because the jury was racist. White people who had clearly committed crimes against african-americans were found to be innocent by the all-white juries of the time. In this way juries can be very unfair and represent exactly what this country does not, oppression against a group of people by a more fortunate sector of the population.
ReplyDeleteI think that when the jury system is used in a setting where it will be fair, it is a very good political institution. It incorporates citizens into the community and provides a human disciplinary action, rather than an iron hand. It prevents one single person from determining a persons fate and makes it so it a a group of people who’s opinions differ, that way no conclusion is hastily thought up. In a perfect world the jury would be even better, because people would not be racist and would call it like they see it.
I agree with Parker that being involved in a jury teaches one about the legal system. I disagree with Parker about how there is no set period of rule because then politicians would have to make the popular decision, which might not always be the best one.
I agree with Daniel that many misuse their powers to fit their own needs and desires. Some seem to overthink the amount of power that they have and instead of putting in place positive things for the country, their actions lean more toward what they really want. This seems to be true whether it's regarding Presidents or other important roles in the government.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with the statement above because it is what our legal system is based on. It gives the person or person’s arrested the right to a fair chance in the court of law. I feel very strongly that most things if not all should be fair. If I were to disagree with the statement above I would be in support of convicting the guilty and the innocent without giving them a chance. Everybody should be given a chance and that is why people come to America. Another “political institution” is that the person arrested has the right to remain silent because anything they say can and will be used against them in the court of law. Innocent or guilty, you don’t have to say anything or it is smart not to. These rights, known as the Miranda Rights, are often abused because when the person arrested uses them to the best of their abilities they can, on occasion, be found innocent when they are actually guilty. Rich people will hire the best trial lawyers who make their living by getting guilty people off, but they have the right to do this because, as it states in the Miranda Rights, they have the right to an attorney. The rights given to the accused are designed to give them an equal chance in the court of law, which is fair and just, but are often abused by those who know how. It may not be fair that people take advantage of the rights they are given, but giving everybody an equal chance is what American stands for and is why people want to come to here, because they know this is the land of opportunity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Carl said about how the jury is not always fair in some cases. The panel of individuals decides whether a person is innocent or guilty, which may seem fair if everybody was perfectly honest. If you look at the O. J. Simpson case you can see that he was obviously guilty and everybody still knows it, but he was found innocent. The only way that could have happened is if the jury was either feeling pressure from the public to find him or innocent or weren’t perfectly honest when they made their decision.
ReplyDeleteThe Jury system is essential to the justice system of the United States because it embodies what is essential to democracy; the ability for the people to make decisions about their government. Having a jury is a safeguard against a single rogue official incarcerating innocent people or freeing guilty people because of an outside agenda. Often the system we have in place is very effective but occasionally the justice system falters. Generally this is because of bias on the part of the jury. Ideally the jury is an unbiased group of our peers but humans are innately biased. For example, in child custody cases the mother often is given more custody over the children because our society believes that women make better parents than men. Another way that juries can not work is that they can be manipulated. Oftentimes in murder cases the prosecution will show gory pictures of the murder to the jury even though it holds very little merit in terms of evidence against the defendant. The pictures are shown in an attempt to get an emotional response from the jury who will then connect those pictures with the alleged murderer even though they have not been given conclusive evidence that he is the perpetrator.
ReplyDeleteI think another important political institution is the Supreme Court. I think that having a court that is the final say in a court case is helpful because it provides an end point for contentious arguments. Additionally the Supreme Court is less susceptible to making decisions based on emotional bias. While yes, they are still human and therefore have opinions of their own; they are trained and so do not speak from a position of emotion. However, having the names of the members of the Supreme Court public turns them into semi celebrities which makes the susceptible to attempts at bribery or something of that caliber. This is a frightening thought. Hopefully nothing of the sort has or will ever happen in the US.
I agree with Carl that cultural and regional bias can negatively affect the validity of jury verdicts especially when the members of the jury have malicious intents
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement above. I don’t know much about the jury system, but historically it’s proven to be helpful for any person to get a truly fair trial. To people going through the justice system, when they’re only around officers and lawyers and judges, I think it would bring a feeling of safety to know that people just like you are part of deciding your fate. Although, I can see why this may also bring some fear. These people deciding whether or not you should be locked in jail for life may not be the smartest or happiest people. There is no way to know the mood or intelligence or each person in the jury. What if one of the people on jury’s grandma passed away and they’re in a gloomy dark mood. What if the person on the jury are undereducated and therefore are very narrow minded. Although there is that fright of who is on the jury, I still believe for the most part it’s more helpful to have a group of people similar to you to help decide your outcome.
ReplyDeleteHistorically a jury has been a positive thing for the accused. When there was still a large separation between blacks and whites, only white men were on the jury. When a black man was accused of a crime the racist white men on the jury usually saw him as guilty. When black people were allowed to be part of the jury it was helpful to a black person being accused. The jury was not racist or prejudice, they could accurately determine whether the man was truly guilty.
Another important political institution is the right to a lawyer. This is similar to the jury. With your right to a lawyer however, it gives you a voice. Trials are confusing and lawyers and judges have specific jargon that not many people understand. If a person was to try to defend themselves in court alone it’s likely they could blurt something out that could damage their outcome. Lawyers are paid to help you win. I believe it’s important to have a lawyer, not just to help you succeed in your trial, but to have someone who believes your telling the truth and stands up for you in court.
However similar to the jury the power of the lawyer can be abused. The lawyer is not the one going to jail if they lose. The lawyer is guaranteed to be intelligent unlike the jury, yet, like the jury, their mood can vary. If your lawyers dog got ran over by a car on the way to court he or she may not be emotionally stable to fully fight for you during the trial. This is usually not the case. Most lawyers really try their best to defend you, if not for the sake of your freedom, for their reputation and the money. Lawyers generally want to win and can be very useful in protecting you in court.
In response to Carolynn: I agree that the supreme court in another political institution that is important. The supreme court can be another option for someone being accused of a crime when they feel as though their trial (jury or lawyer, etc.) was not fair. I also agree that it isn’t fully a democracy-like system, but I believe if your turning to the supreme court for help you probably aren’t looking for a democratic system, the democracy-style trial proved to not work for your case.
My fallacy:
ReplyDeleteSammy van Leer
November 17, 11
Piro: 2
Argument script
Argument Between Over a Thief
A woman is presented in front of a judge on account of supposedly being a thief.
Soldier: Judge I have a thief from the village
Judge: Are you sure this woman is a thief?
Soldier: yes sir.
Judge: What proof do you have that this woman is a thief?
Soldier: She was caught carrying eggs, and animals eat eggs. Foxes are animals and thus foxes eat eggs. If this woman eats eggs then she must be a fox. Foxes are known for stealing food (in particularly eggs) from farmers. And this woman has red hair like the fur of a fox. Obviously this woman is a fox therefore we know that this woman steals food and thus is a thief.
Judge: I understand your reasoning for this peasant to be a thief, but I must get the word of the King before I incarcerate her.
A meeting with the Judge, King, Soldier and woman.
Judge: Through clear reasoning, this soldier has convinced me that this woman is a thief. Your Highness I just need your word before we imprison her.
King: Well woman are a handful to take care and women do tend to steal items that aren’t theirs, thus we should imprison her!
Judge: You heard him, whatever the king says is the truth so lock this woman away!
TYPES OF FALLACIES: Straw man, appeal to authority, undistributed middle
I am not that knowledgeable about the jury. I have never had a relative or ancestor serve as a juror. I think that the jury is very important. They have a big role in helping the judge decide if someone is guilty or innocent and if they are guilty, what punishment they should receive. I think that if the judge was the only person to make the decision for the defendant, then I feel like nothing would get accomplished. Having input from peers to make an important decision is very helpful. The Department of Education is a very important political institution. Without it, no one would have the opportunity to have a good education. Before the Department of Education was founded, the amount of people with an education was really low.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Elise, many people on the jury misuse their powers to fit their own needs and desires. Som presume that they have all this power and misuse it. Innocent people are convicted for murder, for example, because the jury didn't like them for some odd reason. It isn't just the jury, it is also the whole government ad many business people.