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

If I happen to miss something, I apologize; however, since Pro chose to present a wall of text as opposed to following a clearer format, there's little I can do. 1. Pro's standards a. Both of Pro's first two extensions deal with "the people" using nullification to change unjust laws; first, juries are not "the people"; to say that 12 randomly selected, unelected, unaccountable people have the capacity to represent the ideological perspectives of millions is absolutely absurd. The jury's role is limited to that of a fact-finder for that reason - giving them more power opens us up to a "tyranny of the jury", if you will; secondly, nullification DOES NOT change the law. It ignores it. Ignoring a problem, however, does not make it go away. If he's gauging nullification in terms of changing law, then nullification clearly doesn't check government, since it doesn't perform that function. b. Juries don't warrant their verdicts. The only "voice" that the government hears from a nullifying jury is "not guilty". c. Concerning his criterion, note that pointing out the words "in the United States" doesn't make constitutionality an accurate standard. In doing this, Pro fails to attack my actual argument, which was that something being constitutionally permissible doesn't mean it's a just check on government; at best, Pro's criterion could only prove that nullification "isn't unjust"; unfortunately, disproving a negative isn't the same as proving a positive. d. Once again, he misses my argument. I'm not saying that juries will change the constitution; rather, by the nature of nullification - disregarding the law - juries are stopping the justice system from fairly and objectively applying the law since their verdicts aren't based upon objective evidence and impartial reasoning, but on their personal feelings toward the law; ergo, at the point that he argues the jury to be a tool of the public, he's arguing that the jury has given up its capability to reason, and has become an instrument of the majority's whims; appealing to such popularity and calling it objectivity or justice is a logical fallacy. 2. My standards a. He failed to attack both my value and my criterion; flow through first that justice is the primary value to look at today, since rights cannot be protected without objective, unbiased application of law. Next, flow through that Objectivism is the optimum standard by virtue of prescribing decisions based on objective reason and rational rules, rather than the subjective whims of the public (which is all that Pro offers). Oh, there's also the fact that Objectivism has the capacity to determine justice, whereas Pro's criterion defines things in terms of negating negatives (in the sense of proving permissibility, rather than justice). 3. Pro's first contention (sub-point A) a. Now he's adopting circular logic. "What the founding fathers intended is just, because our society's justice is based upon the Constitution... which our founding fathers wrote." I'm sure you see the circle. b. He argues that, if a person thinks a law to be unjust, he shouldn't apply it. To that I ask, unjust by what standard? Public opinion? Pro argues that juries are tools of public opinion, which obviously means that they aren't acting on their own rationality if we accept his argument; if not, he is contradicting himself, in addition to the fact that jurors making decisions based on their own personal biases against the law is no better. 1) Also, keep in mind that nullification doesn't CHANGE the law. It merely IGNORES it; additionally, jurors aren't voicing their opinions. Unlike a Supreme Court decision, there are no formal opinions published concerning the results of the case. The jury says "guilty" or "not guilty", and then leaves. 2) He says, and I quote, "Juries don't have any bureaucratic limits to change injustice." That's unchecked power, my friends. In a democratic society (which he claims the US to be), unchecked power is a source of tyranny. c. His quote says that juries judge the facts, and must render an unbiased opinion - considering that Pro is expanding the role of the jury beyond a judge of fact, and is opening the door to the unaccountable use of whims, emotions, and (as Pro defines it) "beliefs" by the jury in place of objective judgment, the quote works better for myself. 4. Pro's first contention (sub-point B) a. What kind of biases? Well, let's see. Religious biases, racial biases, emotional biases, hatred of a particular law, pity for the defendant, lack of legal education - the list goes on. In fact, these biases are most likely to show up when juries are informed of their power to nullify [http://www.springerlink.com...]. b. "jurors will be able to determine a right verdict" <-- By what standard? Their own personal presuppositions about what justice is? Because, I highly doubt that juries are going to sit down in the deliberation room and ask, "What would the founding fathers do?" Also, keep in mind that unchecked power in the hands of ANY group, whether citizens or government, is a bad thing in a supposedly "democratic" system - especially when that group is a randomly chosen, yet specially-privileged minority (even if it IS under the control of the whims of the majority. Also, keep in mind that the government can't intrude on deliberations - or combat acquittals - even without nullification. Just because they won't be punished doesn't mean they're making just decisions. At best, it's an unchecked check - not a just check. 5. Pro's second contention a. Apart from a few emotionally-evoking cases, he doesn't actually extend his argument. All he says is "nullification lets the people determine what is morally correct"; again, I ask: by what standard, and by what right? The jury, as Pro presents it, is deciding based on one of two (equally immoral things): either their own personal "intuition" about what justice is, or the "collective will" of the majority. Either way, there's no objectivity involved. 1) The community doesn't "think". Communities don't have the ability to reason, or even to act upon whim. Only individuals have the power of thought. Unless, that is, Pro is appealing to popularity again. b. He drops the argument concerning about how 12 randomly selected people can't accurately represent the ideologies of millions (assuming that popular sovereignty is a legitimate determiner of justice); ergo it's antidemocratic, contradicting his value. You can't vote for him there. c. Correlation doesn't imply causation; simply because the jury nullifies and then the Supreme Court renders a decision does not mean that the former CAUSED the latter. d. Nullification doesn't directly act on the law. Nullification is nothing more than blatantly ignoring the law based off of SOMEONE'S (whether the juror's or the majority's) feelings about the law. 5. Pro's third contention a. I know what the Social Contract is. And I know that John Locke is responsible for a formulation of it; I contend, though, that neither I nor any government official signed such a contract. Strangely, though, Locke argues that people haven't the right to take justice into their own hands like courtroom vigilantes; one must alter the legislative (or establish a new one) through voting; that is, one must go through the appropriate channels [http://www.friesian.com...]. b. In civil disobedience, one must be willing to face the consequences - Gandhi and Thoreau were imprisoned, for example. Juries face no penalties, making nullification nothing more than whim-driven disregarding of the law. Very few characters, so I look forward to Pro's Round 3 arguments; and, Pro - please try to follow a cleaner format. The lack of a format really obfuscated your arguments. Thanks.