Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government.

The primary function of an independent juror is not, as many people think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by the government." This quote from the American Jury Institute is why I affirm the resolution, Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on the government. For better clarification of the debate I offer the following definitions. Jury Nullification- When the jury allows the defendant to go free either because the violated law itself was out-dated or unfair, or in that certain situation the letter of the law does not apply. Just- Fair. The value to determine today's debate will be that of Justice, or the quality of being just or fair. To further elaborate, justice is needed in today's debate(or better called fairness) because in a case of jury nullification, fairness comes into action. For example, there are three men all charged with the same crime, manslaughter. One was a cold-blooded murderer. One was a student driver who lost control of the vehicle. And the last was a man who was viciously attacked by a gang and beaten. Out of self-defense, this man pulls a pistol and fires, killing a gang member. Also, lets just say if these men are found guilty, they'll all be subject to the death penalty. Now, the question today is, should all these men be charged with the same crime, all three seen as equal under the law, all three condemned to death on a technical issue? The technical issue being the law said killing is frowned upon. Or should the constitutionally protected process of jury nullification come into play? Jury nullification consists of two aspects or ways to conduct it. One being in a specific case the law should be disregarded. And two the law itself is wrong or immoral, thus the person who broke the law doesn't deserve punishment." In the most strict context of the resolution (given it's legal nature) the way we must resist by LEGITIMATELY RENDERING JUSTICE. This will be the CRITERION for the round. This not only acts as a weighing mechanism for my value, but will serve as a vehicle for which justice is to be achieved. In conclusion, justice through legitimately rendering justice. OBSERVATION ONE: JURY NULLIFICATION IS NOT THE ONLY MEANS OF CHECKING THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER IT IS THE BEST MEANS. Professor John Van Dyke, from the University of Hawaii-Manoa, says that in some cases Jury nullification may be that ONLY way for the public to express opposition to an unjust law. This shows that jury nullification is the best check on the government, because at times, it is the only voice the public has. CONTENTION ONE: Jury nullification, in its principle and application, serves as both a legitimate and just check on the government. SUB POINT A: The principle and application of jury nullification serves as a just check on the power of the government. Jury nullification is intended to protect the defendant and ultimately people abroad. Professor James Duane at the Regent's Law School of Virginia asserts that applying the letter of the law in all of its generality to every situation may not be appropriate. Ultimately, the law does not equal justice thus the only way to legitimately administer justice is through jury nullification. Without Jury nullification the people of the United States would be lacking this legitimate and just check on the power of the government. SUB POINT B: Jury nullification is a legitimate check on governmental power. Some opponents of jury nullification would say that it is an unwarranted and dangerous power, not designated to the people by the constitution. On the contrary, jury nullification is: a perfectly constitutional and legitimate means of administering justice. Granted, nowhere in the constitution does it explicitly say the words JURY NULLIFICATION, however, Professor John Van Dyke said, "The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action…" Clearly jury nullification is perfectly within the spirit of the constitution. It is much like the concept of freedom of expression, nowhere in the constitution does it say these words, however, freedom of expression is at the very core of our American values yet, is not in the constitution; it is inferred, but not explicitly stated. Beyond this, according to assistant Professor Andrew D. Leipold at the University of Illinois, jury nullification intervenes in situations where old, and often irrelevant laws, resurface. Jury nullification corrects these laws and ultimately legitimizes the system. The legitimate administration of justice and ultimately liberty cannot exist without jury nullification. CONTENTION TWO: JURY NULLIFICATION INSURES THAT LAWS ARE FAIR AND LEGITIMATE It is critical that one understands that the law does not equal justice not matter how you define it. There are times when laws are unfair and unjust. Carrie Ullman from the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics supports this saying that, "jury nullification can be a useful corrective tool in situations where the interests of justice and strict compliance with the law do not necessarily coincide." Jury nullification renders justice in these instances by administering it in ways that are out of the power of the judge. This position is illustrated by Professor Alan Scheflin from Santa Clara University saying that a jury can administer justice in ways that a judge cannot. Ultimately, through extensive research and generally accepted fact the resolution Resolved: In the United states, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government, is upheld. The burden of proof on the part of the affirmative is upheld as is the resolution, therefore I urge you to vote affirmative.