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

Observations1. My opponent in constructing a positive claim undertakes the full burden of proof. My burden to win this debate is not to prove that jury nullification is unjust, but rather that it is not just. Keep in mind the distinction, an action can be neither just nor unjust if it has no relation to justice, or unjust if it contradicts justice. Proving jury nullification to be possess either quality is sufficient for me to win the debate.2. Jury nullification is the product of the jury that nullified. If it is assumed that jury nullification is indeed a just check on the government, that would only be in an abstract sense. In order to apply that realization in a way that is relevant to the United States, as referenced in the resolution, my opponent needs to prove (a) that the application of jury nullification is just in practice, not simply in concept. He must also prove, (b), that juries are just, because if jury nullification is a product of the jury, and juries are unjust, then their application of jury nullification is also likely to be unjust.DefinitionsJury Nullification is defined by Cornell's Wex Law Dictionary [1] as, "A jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness. Jury nullification is a discretionary act, and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. It is considered to be inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case. The jury does not have a right to nullification, and counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury. However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and instruction of the law."Justice references the intended function of the judicial system, to fairly and equitably apply laws so as to remove bias and personal agenda from binding legal decisions. As such, we shall define justice as the fair and equitable application of the law.Contention One: Jury Nullification runs contrary to philosophical conceptions of justice.To ensure fairness and equitability, justice, we must maintain consistency in the application of laws. This much is hard to deny. One cannot deem the application of a law to be fair and equal if under identical circumstances one individual is declared guilty and another is declared innocent. But that is exactly what jury nullification allows. If one particular jury determines that the defendant should not be punished by the law, and another, different jury does not, then two identical individuals who committed identical crimes in identical manners and went through identical trials could receive very different punishments. In terms of multiple worlds theory, or the analysis of every possible outcome of a scenario, in two different worlds the same event can result in two different consequences. If laws can be applied differently in different worlds - different courtrooms - then the application of law is blatantly inconsistent, and therefore unfair and inequitable. As a result, for one to prove that anything is just, they must prove consistency among all possible worlds. In other words, they must prove that there is only one possible result, that the application of law is black and white.Jury nullification by definition opposes this conceptualization of justice. For jury nullification to exist simultaneously with justice, every single jury would have to nullify the same law if any single jury does so. Lacking an absolute, either every jury nullifies or no jury nullifies, then jury nullification stands opposed to justice on a conceptual level, let alone a practical one. Furthermore, if a law is so abhorrent that it would be conceivable for 100% of juries nullify, the better solution is to repeal the law, as it better ensures consistency in the application of the law - there is no application. Remember that the proper check on inappropriate laws is democracy itself, our ability to vote for our representatives who then propose and vote on legislation on our behalf. One cannot say that this does nothing to help those currently being accused of breaking the law as it may be appealed to the Supreme Court and declared unconstitutional.Contention Two: The justification of jury nullification simultaneously and necessarily justifies its opposite, jury indictment.The reasoning behind jury nullification, that the jury is better able to apply justice than the laws themselves, opens the door for jury indictment. If a jury can nullify a law because they disagree with the evidence, or the law, or what the law represents, or any number of things, then they can simultaneously indict a defendant absent the presence of evidence, or an actual violation of an actual law. Remember that if a charge is pressed, the jury can vote guilty without any reasoning whatsoever under the same rule that allows them to vote innocent without any reasoning whatsoever. This rule is that jury verdicts are unassailable, we cannot question them. As a result, juries never provide reasoning beyond stating, "Innocent" or "Guilty". This is why jury nullification is possible in the first place. If a jury declares a defendant innocent, there is no way to hold them accountable for that verdict or to even question how they came to their conclusion. Similarly, if they declare a defendant guilty, there is no way to hold them accountable for that verdict or to even question how they came to their conclusion. The reasoning mirrors itself.Pro's Contention One: Nullification is a key check on tyrannyJury nullification fails as a check on tyranny. Alexis de Tocqueville explains [2], "If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them." What Tocqueville is saying is that if we would not give the power of tyranny to an individual, then it is irrational for us to give it to a majority. Similarly this claim can be applied to juries. Are juries not tyrannical if their ability to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant is unchecked? Are juries not tyrannical if they can determine a man to be a murderer without an ounce of evidence? The fact is, juries operate outside of any known system of checks and balances. Juries are not held accountable for their actions. Our check on executive tyranny, tyranny of the president, is the ability to elect presidents, the president's limited ability to enact change, the ability for Congress to impeach the president, and the ability for the Supreme Court of declare presidential acts unconstitutional. Our check on legislative tyranny, tyranny of the Congress, is our ability to elect representatives, the president's ability to veto legislation, and the ability for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional. Our check on the judicial system is the ability to appeal, the right to a jury of our peers, and the fact that judges are nominated by executives and approved by legislators. Keep in mind that juries are a check on the judicial system itself, they are fact finders who are means to interpret evidence, not work around it. Also note that juries have no check. Jurors are unelected, unassailable, unaccountable. We lack control over who sits on the jury. Juries are the tyranny of modern democracy.My opponent speaks as if jury nullification is an inherent power of the jury, that it is intended, but remember that it is not. Jury nullification is possible through our inability to require jurors to provide reasoning, or RFDs if you will. Jury nullification is the legal equivalent of a voter voting against you because, "fvck you" and not being able to delete or counter the vote.Pro's Contention Two: Nullification is a check on prosecutorial discretionI agree that prosecutorial discretion is unjust, but nullification is also unjust and fixing an unjust thing doesn't make the action that fixes it just. Nullification may be the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't mean we accept it. We simply get rid of both evils. Adjust the laws related to statutory rape if you must, but jury discretion (nullification + indictment = discretion) is, in all honesty, the greater evil between the two because it actually overrules the law itself.The death qualified point is a scare tactic more than anything. The supreme court has defended the practice as just in the past, and the reason being is that the death penalty is considered legal and just in the United States. When a juror is anti-death penalty, they will never vote in favor of it, and must be removed to ensure justice. Somebody who disrespects the law is not qualified to apply it fairly and equitably. This does result in pro-death juries, which sucks, but the fear is in jury indictment, which is logically justified by jury nullification. To resolve our fears of indictment, we must also remove the possibility of nullification. If indictment is unjust, so is nullification.Pro's Contention 3: Nullification ensures that law comports with moralityThe solution is to remove the laws. The juror's conception of morality is not always that of reality. Also, morality =/= justice and is irrelevant to this debate. A juror may believe laws themselves to be immoral and always nullify.Sources1. http://www.law.cornell.edu...2. Alexis de Tocqueville, "Tyranny of the Majority," Chapter XV, Book 1, Democracy in America