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

This debate will be in LD format. Thank you for accepting this debate AFFIRMATIVE CASE John Adams, said of the jury: "it is its right and duty to find the verdict according to its best judgment, even in opposition to the court." Because I agree with President Adams, I must affirm the resolution, "Resolved: In the United States, jury nullification is a just check on government." Affirming achieves the value of justice, defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "properly due or merited." This is the right value because it is mandated by the resolution, which questions the justness of jury nullification as a check on laws in the United States. To achieve justice, society must protect individual rights. Ayn Rand explains, "A "right" is a moral principle defining a man's freedom of action. There is only one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life. The right to life means the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the furtherance and enjoyment of his own life. The concept of a "right" pertains only to action— specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical coercion or interference by other men. Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary choice." Therefore, my criterion is the protection of individual rights as life without rights is not a life. If we have individual rights we have freedom of action, so our justice (which is properly due to us) is achieved. Before continuing, please allow me to define the following term from The American Heritage Dictionary, Jury Nullification - the right to disregard the law as applied to the case before it on the grounds of the jury's conscious objection to the law. C1 Jury nullification was instrumental in establishing freedom of the press. Justice Robert D. Rucker explains, in, "The Right To Ignore the Law: Constitutional Entitlement Versus Judicial Interpretation," written for the Valparaiso University Law Review. in the 1735, publisher John Zenger argued to the jury its right to determine both the law and the facts. Zenger was the only printer in New York who would print material not authorized by the British mayor. His newspaper, the New York Weekly Law Journal, exposed corruption among governmental officials. Once an uncomplimentary article was published, the author of the article was subject to prosecution for libel. In this instance the articles were unsigned; however, Zenger's name appeared as the publisher. He was arrested and charged by information with libel. There was no evidence to show that he wrote the articles. Further, it is not clear whether Zenger even agreed with their content. Nonetheless, if the jury had followed the court's instruction, they would have been compelled to return a verdict of guilty. The Zenger trial shows that the freedom of the press was established through jury nullification. Freedom of the press is an essential individual right discussed in the first amendment, thus achieving my value criterion, and therefore my value of justice. C2 Jury nullification helped end slavery in the US. The International Society for Individual Liberty explains, in "A History of Jury Nullification." "Early in the 1800s, federal and state judges instructed the juries they had the right to disregard the court's view of the law. Then, when northern jurors began to refuse to convict abolitionists who had violated the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law, judges began questioning jurors to find out if they were prejudiced against the government's position and dismissed any who were. In 1852 Lysander Spooner, a Massachusetts lawyer and champion of individual liberties, complained that courts repeatedly questioned jurors to ascertain whether they were prejudiced. Modern treatments of abolitionism praise these jury-nullification verdicts for the role they played in helping the anti-slavery cause - rather than condemning them for "undermining" the rule of law and uniformity of justice." This means jury nullification was instrumental in ending some of the worst oppression in US history by ending the dehumanizing conditions brought about to African Americans by slavery. Their individual rights were violated and jury nullification reinstated these crucial rights, which is why it achieves my value criterion. C3 Jury nullification helped secure the rights of laborers. International Society for Individual Liberty continues, "In 1895, going on strike and unionization was against the law. Laborers were not able to protest bad working conditions, low wages, and unmanageable hours. Jury nullification legalized the movement and allowed for unionists to fight for laborers rights, allowing the worker to regain his right to speech, and furthering his ability to pursue happiness This means that jury nullification has helped laborers secure their rights to strike and unionize, allowing them to fight for the right to speak out and for better worker's quality. This is an essential part of the "freedom of action". This is only another reason that affirming achieves my criterion of protecting individual rights. C4 Jury nullification puts power in the hands of the people, allowing them to protect their own rights Dwight M. Callaway writes "Every single jury nullification of any bad law automatically takes an increment of stolen power away from government. Sometimes the increments are small, but history records that sometimes the "increments" are massive and beneficially change the course of history…Even in small increments repeated nullifications tend to cascade and gain momentum. All power lost by government due to jury nullifications automatically flows back into the hands of the people, where it rightfully belongs." If the people have more power, they can defend themselves against bullying government action, protecting their individual rights with their own shield and sword. For all these reasons, I affirm the resolution.