DDO OT Semifinals: Jury Nullification

1: Jury nullification increases subjectivity in criminal trials. Since the purpose of the jury is to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant with regards to specific crimes, judges currently do not tell jurors that they can nullify. Telling juries that they can stray from this duty to only evaluate the facts makes juries more comfortable with acting subjectively. Psychologist Irwin Horowitz of the University of Toledo conducted an experiment and determined juries that receive nullification instructions, however, are “more likely to acquit a sympathetic defendant and judge a dangerous defendant more harshly than when such information is not present or when challenges are made to nullification arguments.” [1] In addition, Horowitz discovered that the juries that received nullification instructions “spent less time deliberating about the evidence and more time discussing the defendant, personal attributions, and anecdotes” [1]. This has two destructive impacts. First, promoting the introduction of subjective, non-evidentiary factors by increasing jury power violates the right to a fair trial. Defendants should expect that they will be evaluate solely on the basis of whether or not they committed the crime, and not on subjective factors such as whether or not the jurors dislike the law and wish to protest it or whether or not they like the defendant. Ultimately, nullification subverts the reason for the existence of the jury in the first place. Second, increasing subjectivity through nullification allows for an inconsistent application of the law from trial to trial. Defendants deserve equal protection under the law, so it is unfair if some defendants who committed a crime are able to roam free while other defendants are sentenced to jail simply because the opinions on the validity of the law vary from jury to jury. For example, nullification was famously used in the South to acquit the racist murderers of Emmett Till [2]. This violated the right to equal protection under the law for other defendants in murder trials because it allowed the juries to arbitrarily decide to whom the law should be applied. 2: Jury nullification is not a fair check on government because it is undemocratic. Juries consist of twelve people who are chosen by lawyers for both sides from a pool of potential jurors through the voir dire process, and they thus unelected, unrepresentative bodies. In addition, juries are entirely unaccountable for their decisions. Jury deliberations occur behind closed doors and they simply reveal their verdict without explaining their reasons, so it is usually impossible to understand their decisions and there is no way to hold them accountable for their actions. In a republic, nullification is unjust because it allows an entirely unelected, unaccountable, and unrepresentative body to usurp power and make decisions about to whom the law should apply. 3: Jury nullification stifles reform of bad laws. Reformation of bad laws requires pressure on legislative bodies and access to higher courts. For example, Prohibition was repealed by Congress because of the massive influx of nonviolent criminals in the jail system while criminal enterprises on the streets flourished, and the Supreme Court ultimately overturned sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas. Nullification stifles both of these requirements. First, it reduces the pressure on the legislatures to reform because it hinders some of the impacts of the bad laws. Had so many innocent individuals not been jailed because of Prohibition laws, for example, there would not have been as much pressure to change. Second, nullification prevents cases from reaching higher courts, which can overturn unjust laws and ensure that all people who have been convicted as a result of poor policy are freed. Had Lawrence’s case been nullified, Texas sodomy laws would still have been in place today. RebuttalsHe claims that jury nullification allows jurors to protest laws that they find unjust. First, turn this against him because this allows juries to usurp powers that do not belong to them. He assumes that this is a good thing, but this is bad because it allows the jury to obtain authority that does not belong to it. The jury exists to determine whether or not an individual is guilty or innocent, and not whether or not the law is unjust. He is thus conceding that through nullification, the jury is taking an authority that is outside its function. Second, turn this because the jury is not a representative body, so it should not be making such policy decisions. These are decisions to be made by the people and their representatives through the electoral process, and not by a group of 12 individuals who were selected through voir dire. Third, just because it can be a check on unjust laws does not mean it is automatically a just check on government. Assassination and terrorism can also be used to check unjust laws, but we do not consider them good because they violate rights. Similarly, nullification violates the right to a fair trial and the right to equal protection under the law, so it is not just. Fourth, nullification is not an effective form of protest because we don’t actually know why the juries made their decisions. Deliberations occur behind closed doors, and they only release their verdict, so it is almost impossible to claim with certainty whether or not nullification has occurred. This means it has no discursive impact that can lead to reform and it is not a good form of protest.He then says that nullification is just because it protests against bad punishments. First, turn this because it is not the jury’s place to determine what the punishment should be. The judge is supposed to assign punishments based on the state’s guidelines. Second, it is unjust to allow a criminal to walk free simply because the 12 people on the jury feel the punishment is bad. For example, if the punishment for murder is the death penalty, it is unjust to allow the murderer to escape conviction simply because the jurors all disagree with the death penalty. If the punishment is truly unjust, the people as a whole, not just the twelve jurors, can collaborate to decide this through the electoral process, or the case can be discussed in higher courts like the Supreme Court. Allowing the jury to decide this is both unfair and undemocratic. He next reasserts that nullification can be used to restrain the government. Cross-apply the argument about how just because it is a check does not mean it is just. Remember, assassination and terrorism are also checks, but they are not just because they violate rights. Similarly, nullification violates the rights to a fair trial and to equal protection under the law, so it is not a just check even if it is a check. You can also link-turn this response because it assumes that the people are the ones who are negating the law. Juries are a group of 12 people who are chosen by lawyers through the voir dire process, which actively screens out educated people like doctors and lawyers. They are not representative bodies and they are not making decisions for the people. Third, keep in mind that nullification can also be used to enhance government tyranny. For example, in the South, as in the case of Emmett Till, nullification was used to prevent KKK operatives from being convicted for murdering and attacking African Americans. Fourth, this is all outweighed by the fact that nullification stifles reform, which is ultimately needed to hinder unjust laws.He lastly brings up free speech. Keep in mind that liberties can be restricted when they violate the rights of others. For example, falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is banned, as is stabbing another person. Speech can be restricted if it violates the rights of others. Nullification violates the right to a fair trial and to equal protection under the law, so it can be restricted.Sources: http://www.debate.org...