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

Thx to whoever accepts. I am using this to practice for my tournament coming up. Please use LD format, and respond in a timely manner. Thx Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." It is because I agree with the 3rd president of the United States and the author of the U.S Declaration of Independence, I stand in complete affirmation of today's resolution, In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government. I would first like to start out with the definition of jury nullification according to the Webster's new world law dictionary. A jury's verdict of "not guilty" despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, often in the face of the jury's collective belief of this guilt, because of its perception that the law is being immorally or improperly applied to the defendant; in other words, the jury nullifies the law because it believes the defendant has been unfairly treated. Trial by jury is clearly expressed as a natural right in the constitution. That being said, my value for this debate is Democracy and my criterion is Constitutionality. The Bill of Rights clearly state the right to not only a trial by jury, but a civil trial by jury. It is a jury's duty to determine if a person is deserving of the punishment they are about to receive. Contention 1: Jury Nullification was intended to be practiced as stated in constitution. Sub Point A: Our Founding Fathers supported Jury Nullification. At the time of the Constitution's framing, juries were entrusted to make decisions according to justice, even if the decision went against the explicit instructions of the court. An examination of writings by the founding fathers does nothing to rebut this assumption. Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Jay, and numerous others, regardless of party, all proclaimed the independence of the jury, believing that the jury's role included both judging the law and the facts of a case. Dictionaries current with the framing of the Constitution also define the jury as "deciding both the law and the facts in criminal prosecutions." This wealth of evidence proves that the framers intended the Sixth Amendment to guarantee the jury the right to refuse to apply criminal laws when they would lead to an unjust result." It is clearly shown that our country needs juries to decide whether a person was right or wrong. Trial by jury was one of the rights as promised in the constitution. According to Thomas Jefferson, Judges judge the law, but the jury's judge the facts. Juries are needed to achieve justice by providing unbiased opinions. Sub Point B: Jury Nullification is promised right in the constitution. The remarkable power of nullification flows from several features of the American system of criminal justice. Because the Sixth Amendment gives criminal defendants a right to trial by jury, a court may not enter a directed verdict of guilty even if the court is convinced that a rational juror could not vote for acquittal in light of the evidence presented. A jury cannot be compelled to disclose its reasons for convicting or acquitting. A court may not punish jurors for returning a verdict that the court finds unacceptable. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prevents the Government from appealing an acquittal. The net result is that jurors in a criminal case have the reviewable power to acquit a defendant whom they believe to be guilty. Contention 2: Jury Nullification Reflects a Community Sense of Justice. In a democratic society, the government is run for the people, by the people. Sometimes, in a case of injustice, it is the people's duty to decide if they want society to not be run by a corrupt law. This is where jury nullification comes in. According to Rachel E. Barkow, professor of law at New York University, "Jurors are not repeat players in the criminal justice system, a fact that makes them uniquely suited to act as a "necessary counter to case-hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors." And because they are drawn from the community where a trial takes place, jurors are the best representatives of that community's sense of what justice would require in a particular case." Because of our government, trial by jury, including jury nullification, is needed to insure that the public has a voice on what they consider right or wrong. Democratically, jury nullification is needed to provide a just check on government power. Contention 3: Jury Nullification prevents government tyranny. Lysander Spooner, a legal analyst, argues that jury nullification is the only way that governments can be forced to obey the social contracts they have signed, including the Constitution. All governments view an act of rebellion as treason. In doing so, Spooner argues, they condemn the natural right that humankind has to overthrow a tyrant. Since this right, then, is generally of no practical use in redressing wrongs, so there is even more need to rely upon an alternative form of "forcible resistance," i.e., jury nullification, which has the advantage over revolution because it can (and should) be legal. This evidence clearly shows that jury nullification is able to democratically fulfill the desires of the people in political corruptness. By using jury nullification, there is a accountability check on the government that will allow a bloodless revolution the the case of tyrannical leadership. Jury nullification is clearly democratic. Jury Nullification is clearly shown to be both constitutional and democratic. Jury nullification is just because it was put in place by our founding fathers, reflects a community sense of justice, and prevents government tyranny. I would like to end this debate with a quote from John Adams, our 2nd president. "It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." Therefore, I ask for your strongest vote affirming today's resolution.