Jury is a group of 12 citizens selected randomly from an electronic register and make a verdict in a trial. The use of jury services in the UK legal system is always being challenged. Two articles with opposite point of view will be evaluated in this review. Since the focus of it is to evaluate the two articles, the jury system will not be examined in detail. The two articles are “The lamp that shows that freedom lives-is it worth the candle?” written by Penny Darbyshire (1991) and “A defence of jury nullification” by Thom Brooks (2004). The two article will be evaluated according to provenance, research, balance, evidence, strong and weak arguments. The strongest and the most convincing article will be examined regarding to the above criteria.
…show more content…
With the above criteria, a strong contention would be assembled and persuade readers to support his/her view. In the perverse verdicts part of Brooks’s article, he provided Judge R. J. O’Hanlon’s opinion and Blom-Cooper etc. as counter-evidences, follow up by the Roe v. Wade case and many other supporting resources such as N. W. Barber, T.R.S. Allan and M.B.E Smith. It is obvious that a good amount of reliable resources including recorded case and different articles were provided. The wordings used were strong. After giving out Judge R. J. O’Hanlon’s opinion, he wrote “O’Hanlon SHOULD NOT suggest that judges never adjudicate in this manner.” “Should not” has given an impression to the readers that he was full of confidence to object the judge. Instead of using softer words such as “may not”, Brooks had “power-up” the whole argument and made it strong. Similarly, Dardyshire had done the same in the random or representative part of her article. She used people always follow the Lord Chief Justice 's 1973 Practice Direction as a counter-example, pointing out that it is not the law which is not that trustworthy. She then further defence her point with the support of Marshall, G. etc. She used the word “magically” to satirize the opposing side which can draw the readers’ attention and make the contention more critical.
Weak argument
It is obvious that weak arguments formed by not contain the criteria mentioned in the above
With the above criteria, a strong contention would be assembled and persuade readers to support his/her view. In the perverse verdicts part of Brooks’s article, he provided Judge R. J. O’Hanlon’s opinion and Blom-Cooper etc. as counter-evidences, follow up by the Roe v. Wade case and many other supporting resources such as N. W. Barber, T.R.S. Allan and M.B.E Smith. It is obvious that a good amount of reliable resources including recorded case and different articles were provided. The wordings used were strong. After giving out Judge R. J. O’Hanlon’s opinion, he wrote “O’Hanlon SHOULD NOT suggest that judges never adjudicate in this manner.” “Should not” has given an impression to the readers that he was full of confidence to object the judge. Instead of using softer words such as “may not”, Brooks had “power-up” the whole argument and made it strong. Similarly, Dardyshire had done the same in the random or representative part of her article. She used people always follow the Lord Chief Justice 's 1973 Practice Direction as a counter-example, pointing out that it is not the law which is not that trustworthy. She then further defence her point with the support of Marshall, G. etc. She used the word “magically” to satirize the opposing side which can draw the readers’ attention and make the contention more critical.
Weak argument
It is obvious that weak arguments formed by not contain the criteria mentioned in the above