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

This is a re-do. Terms have been agreed upon. I will just start with arguments since we're behind in the Zaradi Tournament. Premise I: What is Jury Nullification? Jury nullification occurs when a jury votes not guilty in a trial when they believe the evidence is—beyond a shadow of a doubt—proving the defendant’s guilt. This occurs when a jury member either believes the law is unjust or the law should not be applied to that case for whatever reason [1]. C1) Nullification is a key check on tyranny The founders of the US saw nullification as a tool in order to thwart oppressive regimes enforcing unjust laws. Throughout much of the world, trials were a rare occurrence—and trial by jury was almost unheard of throughout must of absolutist Europe. When trials occurred there, the judge—or a small group of elite officials—would determine one’s innocent or guilt. The founders saw this as tyrannical. A jury of one’s peers, not the government, should determine whether someone is guilty or not. The 6th amendment, which included a trial by jury, was created in order to have the people control the judicial system, not the government. The government would still have power: making the laws and attempted enforcement. But a jury of the common man was created in order to prevent any governmental wrongdoing. Former prosecutor Paul Butler argues, “Jurors were an important check on government power, part of the complex system of checks and balances that was designed to prevent the state from becoming too overbearing” [2]. The jury itself is a check-and balance. Our entire government relies upon checks and balances. The judicial branch checks the legislative branch ensuring the laws are in accordance with the constitution, for example. Our entire government is based upon checks-and-balances in order to prevent a tyrannical government. The jury is a check within the judicial system whose goal was to balance both individual rights to justice and the states interest in prosecuting criminals and enforcing the law. The idea of nullification evolved because of the vision of the jury. Nullification was an added power a jury could exercise. Nullification allows a jury to thwart unjust laws and prevent their enforcement. This was attractive to the colonists because of their experience with the English government. The colonists were often charged of political crimes. But colonists often avoided conviction as the colonists had a jury system. The juries often would be full of anti-English colonists. They would nullify the laws, voting not guilty, even though there was indisputable evidence that the defendant would, in fact, be guilty. Peter Zenger was charged with libel for distributing pamphlets which were critical of the English government. The defense argued for nullification. The colonial jury did nullify Zenger [3]. Zenger was accused of a crime and was guilty, but the laws of which he was accused of breaking were unjust. Nullification allows jurors to counter tyrannical governments. Aaron Mcknight argues, “jury nullification is an important tool for balancing government interests with individual rights” [8]. This can be exemplified with alcohol prohibition laws. These laws unjustly prohibited the consumption of alcohol, a victimless crime. The laws also had the consequence of increasing crime and corruption. In these cases, it would be obvious to nullify. These cases actually were nullified. Some estimates claim in 60% of cases jurors would acquit people accused of breaking alcohol prohibition laws—not because they were innocent, but because they saw the law as unjust [4]. Arguably the best modern example would be whistleblower laws. Snowden, the NSA agent who notified the world that the NSA was spying on US citizens as well as the citizens of other countries, is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. He broke US laws. He could be sent to jail forever. But, obviously, the application of those laws in this instance are unjust. Some sort of anti-espionage laws are obviously needed. Had he released US launch codes, for example, it would be logical to jail—maybe even execute—him. But he didn’t do that. He merely wanted a transparent government and informed us that the government was doing legally questionable things. The government’s enforcement of these laws are tyrannical. If he is ever to be tried in the US, he should be nullified by a jury of his peers. Yes, he broke the law, but the law is unjust and should not be applied in this situation. Locking someone inside a prison is one of the most coercive things the state can do. As such, having more safe-guards to prevent unjust imprisonment is necessary for protecting citizens from government malice (see C4 as to why a jury nullifies). Criminal law is the strongest tool for tyranny to flourish. The USSR used their counter-revolutionary laws to lock up or murder many prominent dissenters against their totalitarian regime. “Propaganda” against the state was a triable offence. It was used as a tool for secret police to arrest anyone deemed suspicious [10]. Allowing a jury to interpret both the law, government actions, and different applications of the law prevents such heinous acts of a totalitarian government from occurring. Nullification is a very important tool in preventing tyrannical governments from taking away our rights and balancing it with the state’s interest. C2) Nullification is a check on prosecutorial discretion Prosecutors have an extraordinary amount of power. They choose who, what, when, and how people are prosecuted. Arguably, they have a “larger role than the judge in determining how much punishment a criminal would receive” [5]. Prosecutors, in many cases, have nullification power. Policeman, too, can nullify. Prosecutors have in the past decided not to charge someone with a crime because they felt as though the law, or that specific application of the law, was unjust. Policeman, too, often do not arrest people due to moral inclinations. What is odd, however, is that people—like my opponent—oppose this when 12 jurors decide to do nullify. Unless my opponent opposes prosecutorial discretion, then his position is incoherent [6]. Prosecutors also have the potential to make mistakes. They may choose to prosecute someone regardless of the morality of the law or the situation of the person. They may not care that the homeless man stole a single apple in order to feed his starving son—he broke the law. It is cases like this where nullification can prevent this from occurring. Prosecutors can go the good which I described above, but they can also apply the law in a poor manner. Nullifications serves as a check to this. A good example of prosecutors poorly using their discretion would be the case of statutory rape laws. These laws are good, but there are cases where they should not be applied and nullification would be justifiable. I am 17 and my girlfriend is 16. Say our relationship becomes sexual. When I turn 18, she will be 17. I would be breaking statutory rape laws. Even though the relationship was consensual, started before I turned 18, and we have feelings of love, I would still be breaking the law. I would be guilty—but the application of the law is unjust. I should be nullified. Is my opponent willing to argue, if this occurs, that I should be convicted of rape? Death qualification is probably the most perverse thing currently in our legal system. Death qualification is applied toward juries who will be serving on a capital punishment case. Those who oppose the death penalty are taken off of the jury—women and minorities tend to be the most afflicted. Generally, wealthy white men tend to make up the backbone of juries on death penalty cases [7]. This procedure is meant to stifle potential nullifiers. Due to the fact the current legal system is generally in opposition to nullification, prosecutors are allowed to exclude certain members of a jury in order to prevent nullification. The people excluded tend to be women, minorities, and liberals. Prosecutors use death qualification and opt for death penalty for the sole reason that the juries are more biased in favor of guilty verdicts. This is proven by the fact prosecutors often take off the death penalty punishment after a guilty verdict is all but guaranteed [11]. If nullification were more engrained into our legal code, this atrocious power of the prosecutor—which leads to biased juries not of one’s peers—would disappear. Serious doubts about convictions exist when the jury is biased against a defendant, and innocent people are sent to die or rot in prison due to death qualification. It makes it impossible to be tried of a jury of your peers if liberals, women, and minorities are excluded from being on your jury. Nullification prevents this from occurring and would cause the justice system actually give the people justice. Nullification is a check on unjust prosecutorial discretion and death qualification procedures. When a prosecutor uses his discretion to perform a de facto nullification no one has qualms about it. Yet when a jury of the common man does so, it is controversial. Why is this different? C3) Nullification ensures that law comports with morality There are way too many laws on the books. It has been estimated that the average American unwittingly commits at least 3 felonies per day [9]. There are two types of laws: things which are banned because they are inherently banned, or things are bad because the law says so. The fact most Americans commit 3 felonies per day tells us most laws fall into the second category. Things are bad because the government said so, not because they are actually bad. We should not punish people for doing things for no logical reason. Allowing a jury to evaluate the law through nullification protects people from being punished for stupid things. C4) Challenge to my opponent Name a good law jurors are likely to not enforce, and explain why it is good law. http://tinyurl.com...;