In the United States, organized political lobbying is a just check on government

Hello guys, I am radicalguy44 and I will prove in this debate that jury nullification actually is a good and just check on government. I would like for this to be an LD debate, where value and criterias are used, and burdens are also upheld. To my opponent, good luck my friend! ------------------------------------------------------------------- AFFIRMATIVE CASE "The primary function of an independent juror is not, as many people thing, 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 strongly affirm the resolution Resolved: In the United States the principle of Jury nullification is a just check on the government. DEFINITIONS: Jury Nullification (AS DEFINED BY THE US DICTIONARY OF LAW) A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. It espouses the concept that jurors should be the judges of both law and fact." Government: a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole The value I offer in today's debate is that of justice, or the moral principle determining just conduct. Since the resolution talks strictly about the United States we must look to the very foundations of our American values, this is where we find the value of justice. The criterion, in which I will measure justice on, will be morality or the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. Something that is just in the resolution is based on what is morally right and fair. Nullification is a decision by the jury to provide justice rather than mercy. 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. Professor James Duane at the Regent's Law School of Virginia says 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, so the only way to legitimately administer justice is through jury nullification. Without Jury nullification the people of the United States would be lacking this just check on the power of the government. SUB POINT B: Jury nullification is a legitimate check on governmental power. Jury nullification is: a perfectly constitutional and legitimate means of administering justice. Nowhere in the constitution does it exactly 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…" 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 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 correct 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 we understand 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. Laws are not always just, therefore the power to nullify increases the amount of just rules, backing up the value of justice. CONTENTION THREE: It is the right and duty of the people to keep government in check. It is and always has been the duty of the American populace to keep their government in check so as to prevent tyranny and injustice. The founding fathers stated this clearly in the Declaration of Independence, "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government". In an easier explanation, it is our job as the citizens of this nation to keep our government in line. Therefore, in order to protect the value of justice, nullification is needed. CONCLUSION: Let me remind you, the resolution doesn't ask me to prove that nullification is GOOD, but instead, to prove that it is justified, which I have proven it to be. Nullification is proven to justify and check government, since we stop the spread of tyranny, and take a moral and just decision.