Jurors Should Be Allowed To Ask Questions During a Trial.

I'm assuming this round is for actual arguments since it has not been stated otherwise, so I will be arguing against the points my opponent has brought up. My opponent's argument is essentially that asking questions will result in the emergence and formation of subtle opinions on the answer before one is given. I find this logic faulty for five reasons:1. The Damage Has Been Done The fact that they have these questions at all already means these subtle opinions have been formed. The damage has been done (if there was any to be made), so you may as well ask the question rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater.2. Not Understanding the Case is WorseIf there is ambiguity or simply a gap in the juror's understanding of the events in question, that uncertainty is guaranteed to be problematic when the time comes for deliberation, while the opinion the juror forms on the matter by asking the question may in fact be validated by the answer given to his/her question anyway. Meaning, not understanding the alleged crime being discussed has a higher risk of resulting in an incorrect sentencing than the possible risk of forming an opinion based on subtle prejudice (especially since that prejudice would already exist whether the question was made audible or not) as the prejudice at least has the chance of being correct. 3. Better Solutions Already ExistPrejudice is something to consider, no one can deny this, but our justice system already does take this into consideration and controls for it as accurately as possible by having an extensive selection process for possible jurors as well as allowing the defence and prosecution to object to questions made that put an unfounded idea into the heads of the jurors. If a juror were to ask a deliberately misleading question, that question could be objected to, thereby removing this potential issue as a threat. The issues my opponent brings up already have solutions. Removing one's ability to ask questions is not necessary to solve this problem, nor is it a particularly good solution if one was needed.4. Other Jurors Should be Made AwareMy opponent also points out that making these questions audible can alter the opinions of other jurors. My response to this is: good. If one juror thinks of a pertinent question that the other jurors simply haven't thought to ask, it should be brought to their attention and an answer should be available. Once again, understanding the case is more important than the possibility of subtle opinions being formed. More is lost through not understanding the case than by having a question raised. Understanding the case is why the prosecution and defence ask questions in the first place, which brings me to my last point. 5. Argument Applies to Defence and Prosecution tooThe prosecution and defence have been asking questions anyway. If this issue of emerging prejudices exists when a juror asks a question, then why not when the prosecutor and defence attorney ask? Should they also not be allowed to ask questions? Of course not, because it's clear that understanding the implications of the evidence and testimonies are more important than controlling for slight prejudices brought about by the wording of a question. Unless my opponent contends that neither the defence nor the prosecution should be able to ask questions, he must agree that there is no real issue with having jurors ask any unanswered questions they may have. Indeed, asking questions in order to come to the most accurate conclusion possible on a case is the point of a trial in the first place. Given these arguments, it is clear that my opponents opposition is unjustified. Not only does the problem he suggest justify not asking questions period, which is absurd, but the issue already has solutions built into the court system. I look forward to my opponent's response.