in the united states, the principle of jury nullificatin is a just check on the government

"beliefs arent exactly valid in this debate" I'm aware, I apologize, and, in the end, did I not give you my definition? "i donot know that there are currently any wrong laws." Fine then. No unjust laws right? Think of this, in certain states if, say, a woman's boyfriend is making meth, and she really has no idea of the fact that he's making it, she will still get thrown in prison. It's the law though, so it must be just, right? I mean, she obviously has to be lying, so why listen to her when it's not going to get anything done anyways. Here's a similar case for you, a woman's grandson is living with her, since the boy's mother is going through college. The mother comes home to visit her son, and brings her boyfriend along. The boy's grandma says that it's alright for the couple to stay in the little trailer out front, so they do. Keep in mind that the grandmother never gave the child back to his mother, since the trailer was too small with just them inside. A month later, the couple is busted for cooking up meth. The police take the child away, even though the grandmother never was aware of her daughters crime, and never let the boy out of the main house. The boy is three years old, and is thrown into a couple different foster homes for the next two months. When the grandmother can finally get the boy back, irreversible trauma has been done from separation anxiety and the sheer shock of being taken away from the person who cared for him, by complete strangers. Keep in mind that the USA Also puts more people in prison than almost any other country. Well that's just because we're so just here, right? We're getting all those murderers and wife beaters out of the system. Wrong. The majority of our prison sentences are from drug charges (mostly marijuana, or other similar drugs) or tax related problems. As I've said, income tax is not actually supposed to be a mandatory tax. It's a voluntary tax, that you go to prison for not paying. But that's justice for you. We also have one of the highest numbers of children in state custody, and the biggest amount of these are from cases where one parent was doing drugs and the other may not have even known. Federal laws overriding state laws. That isn't how it's supposed to be, correct? There was one infamous case in which, an elderly woman of very slight build and was living in California. She had a prescription for medical marijuana and, as we know, this is allowed in the state of California. She had the prescription, and hadn't even left her house with large amounts of it. The police came (to her home), tazed her, and she was charged guilty under a federal law. Think of it, you are told that you can have this for your pain, and you will not be prosecuted by the state, but they can't stop federal agents from doing what they want to you. If that isn't a sign of things getting a bit out of hand then I don't know what is. There is a similar situation with a law in Texas. There is a state law that lets you have a gun in Texas, if it was Texas-made, without having it under state mandates. Once again, federal law attempts to override this. I believe that I have disproved your belief that there are no unjust laws. okay i understand circumstantial evidence, and if evidence doesnt necessarily prove a person to be guilty then the person should not be declared guilty inthe first place but if persay there was a witness to the crime (see scenario) then this person has been proven guilty and there should be no way to get out of it (jury nullification) I've said this a few times, but I'll say it again. Your given "scenario" is illogical, and not once have you given me any backup for why a jury would seemingly randomly nullify a murder case like what happened in the scenario. Groups of people don't just sit there and say, "Ya know what, I don't feel very recognized, so I'm gonna nullify a murder case!" That is not what is done. I need at least one piece of evidence to even believe that something as outrageous as your scenario could occur. Without that I'm just left with some serious holes in my image of this case. For instance, why would the jury nullify something like this murder case which is so obviously wrong? No one is going to question that the law against murder is just and true, so they wouldn't be going against it because of moral issues. Therefor, it isn't keeping in tune with the definition of jury nullification, which is a decision by the jury to acquit a defendant who has violated a law that the jury believes is unjust or wrong. So, in this hypothetical scenario, would it even really be considered jury nullification? You tell me to back my arguments up with facts, and I certainly agree that I should, and am very sorry for the times I haven't done so. I ask you to back your argument up with real cases, or at least semi-plausible/ explainable ones, instead of a random scenario, with no motive, no explanation, and no real firm backing. "i can understand not wanting the government to become like hitler or whatever, but the government to some extent need to ensure that the people are kept just as the government is." And you believe this to be accomplished through jury nullification? Aside from taking away the main purpose of having a jury, I don't see that it really keeps people in check. How do you want to keep them in check? What do you want to keep them from doing? You aren't giving anything to the argument, you're just making a statement with seemingly no purpose (mainly since its just a statement without any type of support to push it). In that same thinking then, a dictatorship is governed by the people, since that dictator is a person. When they say "governed by the people", they mean to say that it is governed by the general public. I've already covered the fact that the populace can't be fully represented in today's world, because of a variety of factors (refer back to my previous arguments). And on the other hand, say they act differently during voting than they do in office. Is that the voters fault? A person's mistake is only that persons fault, you can't blame it on the people who chose him or her. So, say that the person does err, should the people who put him or her there not be allowed to try and fix the mistake? So are the voters just forced to succumb to this person's mistake because they voted, and they made there bed, so they should lie in it? Shouldn't they be allowed to correct the mistakes if able to? So I suppose it's time to wrap this up! I would first like to thank my opponent for debating with me, taking this matter seriously, and putting forth some good, and interesting points. And my last conclusive points: My opponent may not believe that I have proved jury nullification to be good (I suppose it is your job to decide that), but the opponent has never proved it wrong either. The murder scenario that my opponents case was mostly based off of was illogical, and she refused to give me any example of a real case or elaborate any further. Therefor, I believe that her main argument is invalid, not proving her stance on the resolution. Her main point being left unproved, I believe that her argument has been rendered null and void. Lastly, thank you to everyone who has read this, and to the voters, I hope that you vote for whoever did the best, whether it be negative, or affirmative!