The following content is only for reference and learning, and is deleted（ voicdat@163.com ）
10. Jury veto: is it a democratic right or an obstacle to democracy?
The veto power of the jury occurs when the members of the jury refuse to convict a person they believe to be guilty under the current law. They may believe that the law on which the person was convicted is unfair, or that the specific application of the law has caused injustice. Because jurors should not only weigh the authenticity of the case, but also be responsible for the fairness of the case!
The scarecrow fallacy of both sides: 1. Those who favor the veto are supporters of anarchism and even mob rule, and they want to reject all governments and the rule of law! 2. Those who resist the veto believe that people should simply accept and observe all laws passed without discrimination!
The reason in favor of the veto: people not only have the right to exercise the jury veto, but also have the responsibility to exercise this right. Even if the law is passed democratically, it will not change one's obligation to resist unjust laws. Ordinary citizens who do not serve in the government do not have much influence on those who serve in the government and make laws, but for them, the obligation to serve as jurors is the most direct and important government role they play.
Reason against the veto: In non democratic countries, the jury veto may be legal, but in democratic countries, it is not! Because people in democratic countries make laws through their elected representatives and elect the people who are ultimately responsible for implementing these laws. If you think a law is unfair, then you should try your best to let your Congress or Parliament change the law! If these institutions do not change these laws, then work with your compatriots to elect new representatives who will change this law. In a democratic country, for a jury composed of 12 citizens, it is wrong to invalidate the law by exercising the veto power of the jury. Moreover, the law is formulated by the representatives democratically elected by all citizens.
11. Can legalization of illegal drugs reduce drug abuse and trafficking?
Reasons for opposition: legalization will cause more people to take drugs and commit crimes; The freedom of taking drugs is not real freedom. The only real freedom is the freedom to do the right thing.
Reasons for support: There are many legal benefits of drugs. Not only do they not necessarily increase the number of smokers, they can also reduce crime, increase taxes, and facilitate management. Especially from the perspective of human rights, people should freely make their own choices, including those that may cause harm to themselves, as long as they do not harm others!
12. Is inheritance admission an inheritance privilege?
Inheritance students refer to those students whose close relatives (parents or grandparents) graduated from the university they applied for. According to the long-term practice of some famous American universities, such inheritance applicants will be given special consideration when they are admitted.
The reasons in favor of inheritance and admission: 1. maintain special traditions; 2. The parents have studied in a school, so the children have deep feelings for the school; 3. Inheritance and admission are necessary for university fundraising.
The reasons for opposing inheritance admission: 1. Inheritance admission is a privileged plan for those who have enjoyed the privilege; 2. Inherit admission and solidify racial and ethnic discrimination; 3. Inheritance admission encourages the formation of permanent upper class and lower class on the basis of inheritance rather than achievement.
Waller's summary: Privilege is not a good thing; It is a good thing to be loyal to an educational institution, but parents' donations are for the admission of their children, which is trade or bribery; The secrecy of the university admission process itself is unfair. If it also covers up an unfair admission process, it will be even more unfair!
13. Relationship between religion and state
The relationship between politics and religion focuses on some specific issues, such as: can religious exhibits be placed in public places? Can religious ceremonies be held in public schools? Can you set up the scene of Christ's birth on the court lawn?
The reasons for the strict separation of church and state: when religious exhibits are placed in public places, it means that they express the common belief of all citizens; Transforming religious elements into government supported exhibits has destroyed the profound religious significance of these religious symbols.
Reasons for allowing the state to partially support religion: religious themes and religious symbols enter the public area because these symbols have become a common part of culture and have lost their religious significance and become secular, which does not mean that the government supports religion; As shared element symbols, they help unite a vast country, arouse common goals and values, and maintain valuable cultural practices and traditions!
Waller's summary: Although there are serious differences in details, we generally agree on the basic principles of religious freedom: freedom to choose religion or not; The government should neither publicize nor oppose any religious (or anti religious) views! No matter how wrong you think a certain religious view is, any religious group should have the freedom to engage in religious activities they believe in, unless their religion requires sacrifice with living people!
