Jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice. (USA)

First I would like to point out how unfair it possibly is that my opponent didn't truly post his argument in completion because it allows him to edit his case after this round for the voters. My opponent ultimately starts with an observation that ought claims can not be universalized on a topic because they require subjective evidence. My opponent uses the example "One ought to eat." While I agree this may not be true in some cases it is still a debatable stance and the resolution states "In the American Criminal Justice System" which implies majority rule. My opponent also said in response that the best way to create justice is by majority so my opponent agrees with majority rule so we can look at this debate that way. Basically, my opponent discusses why ought claims can never be come to a conclusion on. Perhaps, but that is why there is debate in the first place and there is a more correct answer in which I will try to prove to use is the affirmative. He says specifically that "Ought claims... have no prior justification." I would like to point out how all justice is perceived in the first place whether by law, judge, jury, or anyone. Therefore justification isn't even a good way to find true fact which is what my opponents point is. Most importantly, these statements prohibit much real debate and my opponent justifies all this (remember that all justice is perceived so him even trying to justify this claim according to his rules is subjective) through infinite regression. My opponent completely misunderstand infinite regression saying it justifies ought being relative. However infinite regression is actually a logical fallacy defined in Oxford dictionary as: A sequence of reasoning or justification that can never come to an end .http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Finally, he uses this fallacy of never-ending evidence as his whole value he is trying to uphold stating "I don"t have a value because infinite regression denies all values" which also means his infinite regression is against all goodness like morality, justices, liberty. Obviously my value of societal welfare is beneficial because it helps society which is what a justice system is there for. If you vote for my opponent you are destroying welfare and all values based on his infinite regression. However, I still understand my opponents point. Negative believes that morality, implied by ought, is relative and all evidence for any side is subjective evidence. However, this isn't bad like my opponent believes. Obviously people will always have conflicting opinions and will try to prove their point. However, jury nullification is fighting biased court trials by allowing a jury of 12 people to nullify if the trial is turning unfair. I understand that the jury could also be subjective but another check on the system will always be beneficial. Finally, now that I have proven my opponents argumentation with "ought" and infinite regression I must address my opponents counter-plan point. My opponent argues that we should abolish jury nullification and should instead use prosecutorial nullification. He argues this will satisfy my side of the case which is not the case. Let me point out that these are not remotely the same. Prosecutorial nullification gives all the power to prosectors who are even more likely to be subjective since they are paid and have power. In other words my opponent wishes to give the power to prosectors who have more incentive to be corrupt. One could pay them to nullify. Also, jury nullification is nullifying due to injustice in terms of law but prosecutors are only supposed to nullify due to lack of evidence. One could still undergo injustice very easily with prosecutorial nullification because there may be enough evidence to convict them but the law still may be a terrible law. People need the ability to change a law for the good of society. If a corrupt law is in place should we force the jury to judge a peer on it? My opponent also says that this counter-plan is good because it creates competition or incentive to nullify before a jury does however competition usually makes corruption more of a possibility. Obviously, this counter-plan is not viable because it doesn't give power to the people but to two representatives. May I remind you that representatives aren't perfect and are not obligated to necessarily go with the grain of majority. Obviously giving this power to 12 people directly selected from society would be better. Finally, my opponent attacks all my contentions by pointing out how they flip to their counter-plan which I have shown is ultimately flawed. In fact it doesn't align with any of my contentions because it doesn't give power to the people. I also showed how jury nullification is the most just way because it gives power directly to the people selected from society. Also, I maintain my 3rd contention that jury nullification may sometimes be the only way to come to a verdict even with my opponent's counter-plan because a prosecutor may see enough evidence (that evidence could be terrible if there is enough) and they may be instructed one way by the judge and the other by fact so it could be the only way.