The United States ought to make jury nullification illegal.

Thank you for issuing this debate. Before we start, the Burden of Proof needs to be established in this debate, and that the BOP is on PRO here. He has the obligation to provide sufficient warrant to support his stance on the issue. PRO is insisiting in his claim that the nullification conception should be illegal. My position is to defend the concept and negate PRO's contentions whilst arguing the continuation of the legalization of the jury's right to nullify. Rebuttal RE: Overturning Sparf v. United States PRO seems to be confused, because Sparf v. United States only ruled on the requirement of judges on informing Jury Nullification. So by overturning Sparf v. United States, then the only possible outcome is that judges will be required to inform jurors of their de facto nullification right. But I want to point out that Sparf v. United States already compromises the issue here. Though Jury Nullification is a de facto right of society, it is not mandated nor encouraged by the court. In addition, this case law wasn't the event of the declaration of the right to nullify the law. Said right was officially declared by SCOTUS exactly one hundred years earlier in Georgia v. Brailsford. Plus, this didn't make nullification effectively illegal, as PRO suggested. I'm not even sure what he meant by that. Thus, ladies and gentlemen, the case of Georgia v. Brailsford is the only relevant precedent that needs to be debated concerning overturning a decision and declaring a notion unconstitutional. We need to establish the difference between 'illegal' and 'unconstitutional': 'illegal' means that something is against the law. 'unconstitutional' means that a certain law is in conflict or breach with the constitution, thus declaring a law null and void and anyone affected under said law will not suffer any more consequences. Ergo, in order for PRO to affirm the resolution, the unconstitutionality of the topic at hand must be accurately shown and that arguments supporting illegalization must also be given. RE: Objectivity in Law My opponent hasn't made a solid case yet on showing that nullifying isn't objective but nevertheless, illegalizing Jury Nullification on the basis of whether the concept is an objective procedure or not or that it is a just or an unjust check on government is irrelevant and beside the point. If my opponent establishes a reasonable and accurate contention on the basis of the objectivity of law being relevant to the criminalizing of nullification, it will be much appreciated. To successfully win this debate for PRO, he needs to accurately prove that Jury Nullification is unconstitutional and that it should be declared illegal by Congress. The only way to do this is to overturn relevant precedents upholding the right to nullify. And there are two ways to achieve this {1}: A Constitutional Amendment proposed by the legislature. A decision made by the Supreme Court on a current case that contradicts an earlier case, thus overruling itself. RE: Juror's verdict based on opinion is subjective I agree, every juror is different. Part of human nature is to have biases and beliefs. But the only way to put their opinion to practice is when Jury Nullification is revealed to them by the judge. If it isn't then the jury will be assuming that their judgement should be according to the Rule of Law but unaware of the right to nullify the law. What makes this process objective or fair is that there are twelve other jurors plus two alternates, not just one. In addition, a unanimous verdict must be rendered (or a majority verdict in civil cases). RE: Juries checking on government but jury iteself not being checked I'm not sure what PRO seems to be arguing here but he seems to forget that while a jury may be a check on government, a trial judge is considered a check on the jury. This is why we have voir dire, where attorneys may interview dozens of potential jurors and choose the twelve most competent and impartial ones. RE: Nullification is Unconstitutional I'm not sure if the Constitution specifically states 'under an objective set of laws' but the U.S. Constitution supports Jury Nullification via the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment and Article III, Section 2. Thus, depriving the concept would be a breach against the supreme law of the land {2}{3}{4}: Article III, Section 2: "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury;..." Fifth Amendment: "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;..." Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,..." But regarding Due Process, the Fifth Amendment as well as the reconstructional Fourteenth Amendment contain and support said Clause, which was adopted and provided by the Clause 39 of the Magna Carta {5}: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." No where does it specify that Jury Nullification or any other related concept violates Due Process. In fact, Jury Nullification upholds it, since a jury nullifying a law and judging based on what is unanimously justifiable to them and not what is in conformation to the law is lawful and thus in accordance to the constitution. Article III and the Sixth Amendment maintain that the jury has the ultimate decision of guilt or innocence. To recquire a trial by jury is to imply that jury's ability to come to its own conclusion regarding acquital or conviction. Meaning, that any jury has the acquittal power to impose on any defendant for any reason. Additionally, the trial court or appelate court are forbidden from appealing or overturning an acquittal on any defendant and to retry said defendant for the same crime twice according the Fifth Amendment. In addition, excluding the their constitutional privileges and case law, the jury collects its ability to nullify from three other concepts {6}: its right to deliver a verdict, the insufficiency of courts to render a direct verdict regardless of the essence of the evidence, their immunity from rendering a verdict. With these privileges, the objectivity of the procedure is clear. RE: Jurors not revealing verdict is detrimental There are lots of ways for the decision of the jury to be revealed. A jury can be pulled by the judge and render their individual verdicts. Also, a juror, after the trial is over, can reveal what happened at the jury room at his own discretion by talking the the media, etc. If a juror lied in voir dire, he could be prosecuted for perjury. Ignoring a judge's instruction on disregarding an argument or evidence may result to him being thrown out of the jury. Also, a juror has an obligation to go to the judge and report any unethical behavior. I did not address the quotes of experts and theorists my opponent cited since it will be useless. Unless PRO introduces an argument based on a quote and not render the quote as an argument, I will then address it. Ladies and gentlemen, again, to win this debate, my opponent must prove that Jury Nullification is unconstitutional plus it should be illegal. This is enough for now. I will extend my arguments in round two. Thank you and good luck! Citations http://money.howstuffworks.com... http://www.law.cornell.edu... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...