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

I thank Mestari for a fine debate. I will summarize my case and refute his very short response. == Empirics == This is an important point I brought up and was dropped. I demonstrated how the majority of evidence suggested jury members act in a rational and careful manner in regards to nullification powers. If this is the case, we can assume nullification does not measurably harm—and only benefits—the justice system. Con essentially assumes jurors will decide cases in reckless disregard of the facts and vote not guilty based upon emotional grounds or anti-government extremism. However, the fact “nullification accounts for a small portion of the factors that determined the verdict”[1] suggests jurors rarely exercise their nullification powers. As they use it rarely, it can be assumed jurors take their power very seriously and only nullify when they see that it as reasonable. What must be noted is that fact—that it is rarely used—has come from cases in relation to race, where the ‘bad’ juror should exist. Thus, even in extreme cases, jurors seem to act appropriately. The vast preponderance of the evidence suggests that nullification is not bad, and generally they act in accordance with the law. == Dropped arguments == It must be noted Mestari has dropped my entire case. He thus concedes nullification is a check on tyranny, prosecutorial discretion, death qualification, and that nullification makes the legal system more moral. He also drops my challenge. And dropping the challenge is extremely important. He has not shown a single case of nullification gone wrong. He argued I had to prove that nullification was good in practice—I have. Both theoretical examples (statutory rape, tyranny) and real life ones (prohibition, 3 felonies per day) show nullification benefit society. He has not even shown one example that nullification is bad in real life. He then concedes nullification only causes good, and has no downside in the actual world. This also means he concedes jurors only nullify bad laws—something which is just. If nullification only affects bad laws, then nullification amplifies justice—and is ‘just’. I win the debate just from that. == Definitions == Nullification: I never said jurors do not disregard some facts. Indeed, jurors often accept the defendant is guilty. So they are subverting the facts in that they vote not guilty when the evidence suggests the defendant is guilty. However, this is not unjust. In many cases, this serves to promote justice as voting guilty for a nonviolent crime such as statutory rape (in the example in R1, at least), euthanasia, or drug use is blatantly unjust. Thus, opposing the facts does not necessarily mean something is unjust. Mestari also accuses me of misrepresentation—something which horrifies me. However, he seems to ignore how the author later concludes “I want to suggest, in contrast with prevailing assumptions about nullification by both its supporters and detractors, that jury nullification can, and in many contexts does, occur within the rule of law rather than subvert it”[2] (emphasis added). He also states “nullification can be reconciled with the rule of law”[2] (emphasis added). It also must be noted Brown’s definition does not include jury indictment, and thus refutes one of Con’s previous arguments. His definition also works with my paraphrase. I said they do not deny facts in relation to guilt—they accept that—but they ignore facts in relation to law. Thus, it is Mestari wrongly interpreting what I said. I am not going to accuse him of academic malpractice like he did to me. It also must be noted Brown argues “To achieve … justice--we must sometimes abandon law's means, such as rule application … nullification is one way … to correct the imperfections of the rule of law and, when wisely used, to achieve justice in an individual case that rule application would not achieve.”[2] Thus, Brown argues nullification is in fact justified. The Brown’s article SUPPORTS my position. And I have offered empirical evidence from both [1] and last round proving jurors do use nullification wisely. Thus, nullification achieves ‘justice … that rule application would not achieve’. Justice: Again, Mestari claims I misrepresent my source which is honestly one of the most insulting things you can say to someone in an academic setting like this. It must be noted the quote Mestari shows us says equitable includes “circumstances of the individual case”. He, on the other hand, is arguing that laws must ALWAYS be applied. Nullification argues opposite, and in fact argues that each case INDIVIDUALLY must beevaluated. His definition proves that nullification is actually IMPORTANT for the justice system to be equitable. And his definition (well, the way he interprets it) contradicts itself: facts must always be applied, but the circumstances of the individual case must be evaluated as well? Thus Con’s position is contradictory and actually supports my position. So Mestari essentially drops everything I have said. He concedes it as true. He rests his entire argument upon semantics—and even then, he fails as Brown argues from his definition that nullification is, in fact, legal and actually promotes justice. Brown’s definition is also very similar to the one I presented. He then disputes justice, but the way he portrays his definition is contradictory and as equitable means accepting the facts based upon individual cases—as nullification does—he thus concedes nullification is just upon his own terms. Con drops way too many arguments to win, his definitions do not support his case, and it is obvious that I have proven that in theory nullification is just and as well as in practice. As it is last round, he cannot undo these drops. Thus, it is obvious: Vote Pro. Or, as Mestari would put it, ‘the debate is over’. I win. 1. http://www.niu.edu... 2. Darryl K. Brown. “Jury Nullification Within the Rule of Law,” Minnesota Law Review 81 (1997).