Jury Is Guilty

510 Words3 Pages
I assume that you think it is irresponsible for someone on a jury to believe a defendant is guilty because of faith. Let us define "faith" in the following way: For a person to have faith in some claim is for the person to believe the claim without what he or she thinks is good justification. If my assumption is correct, then do you think it is irresponsible for people to have faith in the claim "God exists"? If you do, then explain why. If you don't then explain why. I think it is irresponsible to for someone on a jury to believe a defendant is guilty because of faith. When a jury uses their beliefs of whether the man committed the crime or not to determine a man’s fate those beliefs should have sound backing. In the definition we are using says faith is believing in a claim without good justification. I think it would be very irresponsible to convict a man of a crime he didn’t commit because you had faith he did it. When other people are hurt because of faith, I think it is irresponsible. There are times when I don’t think faith is irresponsible. If I had a child and they had cancer and all signs pointed badly, I would need faith to survive. Losing my child would ruin my world, and at the very least having faith would prolong my breakdown long enough for me to be there with my kid until…show more content…
When people believe so blindly in God they will bomb buildings killing thousands of people in his name they are being irresponsible. This goes beyond to each his own. If you have belief without justification in this case you are being irresponsible. If I were going to kill in someone’s honor I would need rock solid proof that he is all good and all knowing to know I am not unjustly hurting people. So while I think having faith in the claim “God exists” can be irresponsible at sometimes, I think it’s ok but not the way I like to do
Open Document