R1 Summer Tournament: Jury Nullification

Framework We need to value this debate on the effect of the passage or nullification of this resolution on injustice in the legal system. Thus, if I can prove that jury nullification will bring about corruption and injustice, the judges should feel comfortable to vote in my favor. Contention 1: Jury nullification ignores subjectivity Jury nullification has the ability for a jury to not execute justice. This is epitomized by a case in 1955 where two white men were sent to trial for the murder of a black teenager. Even though the evidence pointed toward the two white men murdering the black teenager, the men were acquitted. Later, they even admitted to killing the teenager, but due to the double jeopardy clause in the constitution, they could not be tried again for the same crime (1). This is only one of many examples of when jury nullification can go wrong. Remember, the resolution specifies perceived injustice, which is ridiculous considering the fact that injustice is perceived differently by different people. For example, in the previous example of the killing of the black teenager may be considered barbaric and unjust and should have resulted in a punishment for the perpetrators nowadays by me and my opponent, there may be a different conclusion met by others. This results in a problem because different juries will come to different conclusions based on moral principles. This is due to implicit biases which pervade our thoughts and beliefs. Implicit biases are, according to Harvard University, preferences and feelings that avoid conscience and thought (2). This applies to all, even juries, and cannot be accounted for. This can lead to poor decisions involving jury nullification such as ones involving race, gender, etc. This leads us to the obvious, that we open up an opportunity for people to abuse the system of jury nullification through their own eyes of “perceived injustice” and will probably never know it happens, since the bias they have is implicit. This can be easily confirmed by McElroy of the Independent Institute who states that juries can easily achieve the opposite of their intended goal; they can further injustice by refusing to convict those who are guilty of violating just law, such as the juries that refuse to convict police officers who use excessive force, which occurs at an impressive rate because juries are more reluctant to apply the law to a police officer (5). Contention 2: Constitutionality The resolution, if passed, would be in violation of the constitution and the very basis of our legal system. Specifically, we would be in violation of our 14th amendment’s equal protection clause which states that everyone is equal under the law as explained by the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University (3). By changing the law simply because it is disagreeable to the jury would be a disservice to the people because by changing the law to simply acquit someone, one would imply that the jury is “above the law” by changing legal code at will to fit a need of the accused. This is not the duty of the jury, but of the Supreme Court to interpret the law. This is outlawed yet again by the constitution when it gives the specific powers to each branch of government. Also, it should be noted that the government always has valued the representation of people in legal matters. That is why our system allows us to elect officials to represent the people in legal proceedings. But, as pointed out by McKnight in 2013 of the BYU Law Review, the jury is not a body that represents the whole in demographic nor does it embody everyone’s beliefs or at least a majority of people’s beliefs (4). Not everyone is directly involved in the process, much less the people who should be striking down unconstitutional laws, which is the Supreme Court. In fact, Marbury v Madison is the legal precedent that gives the Supreme Court the power of judicial review meaning they interpret the constitution’s meaning and apply it to law (6). Since powers are also separated in a way so that one branch or part of government is no stronger than the other, jury nullification is dangerous because it sets a precedent of overriding the constitution and threatening the balance of the three branches of government by allowing basic juries to change the code of law, which gives the judicial branch too much power. The highest court in the land will not be the only one to strike own laws, but any jury that perceives injustice in a case, no matter the objection, still has the chance to strike down laws which Congress created. This all happens while setting a precedent of violating the constitution which means skewed public opinion and a pivot toward a less democratic society. Contention 3: We create fluidity in the law Remember, the rule of law is universal and affects everyone, shown by the 14th amendment and the due process clause in the 5th amendment. Former attorney Fissell shows that substantive rejections of the legal text violate the rule of law by accepting the community’s collective morality (7). This is a problem because this means that the social contract is broken, which is described as the contract between government and people where people give up certain rights for protection, which also means submitting to the rule of law (8). Laws are meant to protect the people and make certain that people can live in a civilized society where autonomy is protected as well as the will of the people. However, with jury nullification, that is threatened. This will lead to a society where people do not live under the rule of law, but of anarchy as people use a “community morality” to determine whether someone committed a crime. However, this means that congruency in the law is threatened which is one of the reasons we institute law to begin with. After all, we need agreed upon rules so that the efficacy of the rules themselves remain, as stated, again, by Fissell (7). After all, if people are in general agreeance, who needs legal text? This is the problem, when rule of law is threatened, so does all laws and the legal system. Conclusion Because jury nullification does not take into account subjectivity, the constitution, or the fluidity that would be created in the law with the passage of the resolution, one must fail this resolution. Sources 1. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 8. (. http://tinyurl.com...)