Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government.

Before I begin, I would just like voters to see something: [http://www.debate.org...] If you take a look at this other debate, many of the arguments between these two opponents of mine share striking similarities; this leads me to believe that either a. my current opponent has stolen arguments from other debaters, or b. my opponent has stolen arguments from an off-site source. Oh, I just found the same arguments here [http://www.debate.org...] as well. Interesting. To cover the debate, though, I'll go ahead and attack his arguments. Concerning his definition of jury nullification first of all, he defines the principle in a way that presupposes the violated law to be unjust; however, considering that this definition is blatantly abusive, I submit that nullification is simply a jury's disregarding of the judge's advice and the acquittal of a defendant despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. 1. The affirmative's standards a. I agree that justice is the primary value in today's round; however, his definition of justice is extremely circular. He claims that justice is fairness, but he never provides an objective standard of evaluating what is fair, and what is not. Because Pro provides no such standard, he obviously cannot win the value, as he is unable to determine exactly what justice consists of. b. Additionally, I'd ask you to disregard the argument he presents within his value premise; if he wishes to make arguments to support his standards, they belong in the contentions. c. His criterion is as circular as his value. He even states in his analysis that his standards are set up as such: "justice through legitimately rendering justice". He not only lacks a standard for determining justice, but he lacks a standard for evaluating the round in its entirety. He gives no analysis as to what justice is, or how it is legitimately rendered. Prima facie, you can negate based on the lack of legitimate standards on Pro's part. Because Pro hasn't any real standards of his own, I offer my own, which I've copied and pasted from a previous debate I had on the very same subject, under frighteningly similar circumstances. 2. My standards Value: Justice Justice is defined by Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition, as the fair and proper administration of law. This is an important value in the United States because the justice system is set up primarily to apply laws in an objective fashion so as to impartially arbitrate disputes among men. If a law cannot be fairly and properly applied, the proper channels must be used so that the statute in question might be repaired or scrapped. Criterion: Objectivism Ayn Rand argues in The Virtue of Selfishness that the proper purpose of government is "as a policeman which protects man's rights... and settles disputes by rational rules". To ensure that laws are fairly and properly applied to that end, Rand states that the rules under which a government operates must be absolutely objective; otherwise, the use of force would remain solely in the hands of individuals, which contradicts the function of government as a policeman, and subjects individuals within a social setting to the equivalent of mob rule; ergo, objective law and the application thereof are the primary priorities of a just system. 3. Pro's observation a. This is simply an attempt by Pro to use an affirmative argument to frame the round in a way such that the negative hasn't any ground left to argue. That's abusive. b. To respond to his actual assertion, the "public" has no voice. The public is merely an aggregate sum of individuals; however, considering that individuals within a social setting have vastly different values, ideologies, and ways of thinking, the affirmative cannot possibly claim that a nullifying jury A. accurately represents every perspective, or B. has the ethical authority to render judgment on a law. c. Even if the jury did represent the majority of individuals in a society, Pro presupposes that it is morally acceptable to permit the majority's whims to determine when law is being fairly applied (ergo, justice); keep in mind, however, that both law and ethical judgments must be based upon human reason, not upon popular sovereignty. At the point that the affirmative explicitly argues that nullification is a tool of the public, he has lost the round. 4. Pro's first contention (sub-point A) a. This argument is based upon the circular presupposition that nullification is a just/legitimate institution. Pro has to prove the truth of the resolution, not assume it as a premise. b. Pro also presupposes that the law being nullified is unjust; however, since Pro offers no objective standard of justice (something you get only on the negative), nullification could easily target just laws that are merely unpopular. 5. Pro's first contention (sub-point B) a. Even if nullification is implied in the Constitution, that doesn't prove that it is a just check on government. b. His evidence doesn't support his claim; it says only that there is to be an independent judiciary; it would be a non sequitur to say "the framers intended an independent judiciary; therefore, jury nullification is a just check on government." It simply does not follow. c. His evidence also discusses the importance of protection against arbitrary action; however, Andrew Leipold with USA Today clearly explains that juries are neither elected nor accountable [http://findarticles.com...]; if anything, nullification's lack of oversight puts the judiciary in greater danger of arbitrary, subjective action if the principle is glorified. d. He is appealing to novelty [http://en.wikipedia.org...] when he claims that "outdated" laws are unjust by virtue of their being old. A law's age, however, has nothing do with its legitimacy. 6. Pro's second contention a. I agree with his assertion that sometimes laws are unfair/unjust; however, Pro hasn't provided any standards which evaluate the justice of a law; ergo, he cannot definitively claim that he is fighting injustice since he has failed to establish the lens through which we might identify it. b. Even assuming that a law in question is unjust, jury nullification is not the way to deal with it. Understand that nullification merely ignores the problem - something which will not make that problem go away. Nullification doesn't stop people from being subjected to the law, nor does it change/repeal the law; it merely ignores the laws based on the diverse whims and personal feelings of each juror. c. Once again, we see Pro relying on the circular presupposition that nullification WILL render justice; however, I remind Pro that the validity of the resolution is to be proven, not assumed. d. I do agree with pro that the effects of nullification "are out of the power of the judge", inasmuch as the jurors are not accountable to the judge, the attorneys, and so forth for their acquittals; ergo, the lack of accountability merely destabilizes the delicate system of checks and balances integrated into American government, and creates a judiciary that, from an objective standpoint, is a bit TOO independent. This early in the game, I'm curious to see how things will unfold, and I hope that the affirmative will be able to come up with some slightly more original arguments. ;) Good luck, and I'll see you in Round 2.