Jury Nullification (full resolution in R1)

Thanks, Con! I. Law as IntegrityCon does not rebut my central claim that the principles are just as much part of "the law" as the written statutes. As I said in my case, "the law" is composed of both principles and written legislation; we therefore cannot say that the former is not the law, while the latter is, as to do so would be to divorce the written rules from their own reason for being, effectively rendering them incoherent. Con does not rebut this, so he cannot respond to it in his final speech (new argument). Since the principles are "the law," a jury is not violating the law when it upholds these principles, but affirming the importance of these critical laws. There are 3 impacts: (1) juries promote rule of law by holding principles via JRNL, (2) there is no degradation to rule of law in JRNL because the principles are "the law," and (3) jurors uphold their oaths and their obligations when they protect these critical principles. Even if you don't buy that, Con concedes that "the principles of the laws passed are just as important as the statutes themselves. " I would argue that the principles are likely more important, since the laws themselves lack any internal legitimacy without the principles. If the principles matter more, than juries should prioritize those principles above the written law when the two are in conflict. If the principles matter equally, then there is no reason to necessarily prefer the written statutes to the principles; a jury would not be acting in a net-negative way if it prioritized the principles. Finally, Con himself writes: "Nonsensical laws. .. do not belong in society. " When Con says they don't belong in society, the implication is that they don't belong in society because they are illegitimate. Yet, he still argues that juries should convict under these laws. In other words, Con has just admitted that he wants juries to enforce obviously illegitimate laws. So, if the government passed a law banning criticism of the government, Con would still assert that juries should enforce that statute. Con would have us put "social order," a very Orwellian concept, above essential freedom of speech, even though he agrees that the laws banning freedom of speech "do not belong in society. " Put another way, Con is fine with us drilling holes in the foundation of our house (our core values), just so long as the walls (the written laws) are untouched. Such a house will soon collapse. II. AlternativesA. Proposed Alternatives InsufficientSeeking to change laws through the legal system takes time--sometimes years; during the appeals process, a defendant may remain in prison under an unjust law, waiting for the law to be struck down. This time spent in prison quite literally hastens the death of the unjustly convicted individual and deprives them of their freedom for however long the process takes. Even at the end of the process, they may not be successful in their legal challenge, leaving them to continue to unjustly rot in prison for perhaps their entire life. Re: legislative action, unjust laws may not always be unpopular, disincentivizing political leaders to act justly. Even unpopular unjust laws may be blocked by legislators who are beholden to interest groups or who represent constituencies that support the law. The Senate, for instance, is not a majoritarian institution--the vote of someone from Wyoming has the same force as one from California. In this way, small populations who vociferously back unjust laws may be successful in stymieing efforts to overturn those laws. Legislative action also takes time, leaving the convicts to languish without relief in dangerous prison environments. This solution incurs one additional harm: "U. S. law generally applies to an offender the penalty in force at the time the offense was committed. " [1] So, even if an unjust law is repealed by a legislature, people who were previously convicted under that law continue to suffer in jail; their convictions do not disappear. This option can thus only prevent future injustices; it cannot stop ongoing ones. Reform movements can take inordinate amounts of time to produce results. MLK, for instance, began campaigning in 1955, yet the Civil Rights Act did not come about until nine years later. [2, 3] Activists had been working toward the goal since long before MLK. Reform movements themselves may also never come to fruition. Suppose it took 9 years to overturn mandatory minimums on pot, or some other unjust statute. Are we seriously going to leave people convicted under these laws in prison for nine years, potentially cutting their lives short by up to 18 years, and denying them almost a decade of their freedom, when there is no guarantee that the reform effort will succeed? B. JRNL UsefulThe benefits of JRNL are clear: (1) it provides immediate relief to people threatened by unjust convictions, (2) it is a tool to force changes in the law, and (3) it reinforces the underlying principles which legitimate the law. JRNL adds to the checks we have to increase protection for people. When any person is confronted by the possibility of conviction under an unjust law, they can either be convicted and appeal, or be acquitted via JRNL. In the former case, they may be trapped in prison during the appeals process, where the environment is rough, their freedom is gone, and their lifespan is declining; they may even lose their appeal, like Dread Scott lost his. In the former case, the victim of the unjust law never is forced to endure any of those harms: they are protected from unsafe prison environments, loss of freedom, and early death. There is also no fear of being trapped in jail due to a failed appeal. In other words, JRNL provides immediate relief to people--protecting them from the very real harms they would be exposed to in Con's world. JRNL prevents the injustice from occurring in the first place. Next, if enough juries nullify a particular law, prosecutors may be less willing to attempt to pursue convictions under it, or legislators may be forced to fix it to make the law less odious. Thus, JRNL can be a coercive tool in forcing government action or dissuading unjust prosecutions. Finally, JRNL reinforces the basic legitimizing principles which underpin our written laws. Everytime a jury makes a statement on the importance of freedom, on equality, or on any other such value, it promotes rule of law by reminding lawmakers of the core principles which ground our legal system. III. NullificationRe: perceptions of justness, keep in mind that all decisions of a jury are going to be made on perception, including perception of guilt. Jurors cannot possibly be objective fact-finders, per Con's own data, and so clearly they are going to make choices based on their perceptions all the time. This is a non-unique issue. Con concedes that "[a]ll applications of law are not good. " So,why should jurors blindly endorse all applications of the law? In fact, it may well do harm to the legal system's credibility when jurors do not reject bad applications of the written law. When jurors and prosecutors ignore the text's legitimating principles, then their actions cease to be justified by those principles. This makes the legal system appear nonsensical, oppressive, and capricious, which undermines its credibility. Only by upholding our core principles can we ensure respect for the law. Con also writes that, "one case of nullification that results in acquitting a defendant will not solve injustice in our legal system. " Even if that is true, at least one case of JRNL can prevent a defendant from being unjustly harmed. Saving that one person from unjust penalty increases the overall amount of justice in the system; that has to be a good thing. This is true in Zenger's case; JRNL in that moment prevented the government from acting oppressively. And again, if enough juries nullify a law, prosecutors may simply stop bringing cases under the law. I said: "If the jury's only job were to ascertain the facts and apply the letter of the law. .. their job could be better performed by a commission of trained legal experts. " Instead, the founders specifically vested this power in lay people to make sure the government wasn't deciding who was/was not in jail. In fact, Con never directly refutes this point. If juries ONLY applied the law as the government told them they would be nothing but government stooges. Juries were meant as a check on government, not merely as fact-finders. Plus, I already showed that the founders did not object to JRNL. IV. Voting Issues1. Law as Integrity JRNL promotes rule of law by (a) upholding the principles which are part of the law + (b) preventing damage to the legal system's credibility by not upholding its legitimizing forces. There is no loss of rule of law on Pro's side per (a), but also as principles are more important (or at least as important) as written law. 2. Alternatives Fail JRNL prevents the wrong of unjust penalty from occurring and increase the net amount of justice in the system. All of Con's alternatives fail for various reasons. 3. Checks JRNL is a check against oppression, placing the power of conviction in the hands of lay people, not professional fact-finders. 4. Uniqueness Even if JRNL leads to just slightly more acquittals in my world (which is likely), the difference between worlds is small. Con hasn't shown his world to be meaningfully better. 5. Oaths Con says jurors ought to fulfill their oath. Because upholding the law means not just upholding the written law, but also the principles, jurors can only truly fulfill their oath to uphold the law (in its entirety) in Pro's world, esp. the most important aspect of the law (principles). V. Sources1 - . http://tinyurl.com...2 - . http://tinyurl.com...3 - . http://tinyurl.com...Thank you!