In the United states, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government.

There are a few risky assumptions that my opponent makes in support of his position. The first assumptions is the very first argument that my opponent presents against my introduction and value. He basically tries to convince you that jurors are not needed to check governmental abuses of power because the constitution already does this. While it's true this is the constitution's purpose, it is not true that it is always effective. There have been points throughout the history of the united state, where the government has abused its power. A few examples would be: suspension of Habeus Corpus, Espionage and Sedition Acts, Fugitive Slave act, and many more. Don't make the mistake of assuming that the Constitution will save us. That is, in the end, up to the people. In defense of my criterion, checks and balances is an internal government check, while jury nullification is an external (people to government) check. Once an unjust law is passed the only thing that we can rely on is my criterion legitimately rendering justice. On to my observation, my opponent provides "legal counsel" as a superior alternative to jury nullification. However, this A) does not check the government, B) only protects the defendant, and C) is not competitive to jury nullification. Against my contention one he attacks the legitimacy of the institution of the jury. 1, we are not debating about the legitimacy of the jury; BUT RATHER the legitimacy of JURY NULLIFICATION. 2, the awareness level (which my opponent talked about) and the protection from public scrutiny are what make juries such an effective check. Through jury nullification the jury insures that the LAW is not the one that tramples on individual rights. On my sub-point A, my opponent talks about how jury nullification protects the defendant and hurts them, but the most interesting part about their argument is how it does this ALL AT THE SAME TIME. While this is an interesting thought, it doesn't make sense and was not supported at all. On my sub-point B, the only complaint that my opponent provides is that my argument is passionate and unsupported. He offers these while blatantly ignoring the two cards I offered in support of this point. This can be considered a drop since my opponent had nothing to say on the matter. In my second contention, my opponent ignores the fact that laws need to be fair and legitimate before his value of individual rights can be insured, and his criterion of protecting rights can be up held. Don't let him blow jury nullification out of proportion, it's been around for hundreds of years and we all still have rights. He cannot simply assume that a universal application of the letter of the law is ALWAYS appropriate in EVERY situation. Let's move on to his case... His value of individual rights has a few problems. 1, you can't insure it with out my value of freedom. 2, his position does not uphold individual rights (he can't insure the law won't oppress my rights). 3, his argument is non-unique (we have individual rights now in a world WITH jury nullification). On to his criterion of protection of rights. 1, he can't insure this will happen without jury nullification. 2, you can't assume that current checks (excusing jury nullification) are going to adequately "protect" rights as they have failed in the past. 3, his advocacy does not support his criterion (taking away jury nullification as a check on the government doesn't some how magically protect rights). 4, this is one of those assumptions mentioned earlier (he assumes that the law equals justice). In his first contention we see another one of those risky assumptions. Firstly my opponent has no link in this contention to his value or criterion. Making it a mere unrelated side note to the debate with no real voting value in today's debate. Furthermore, my opponent assumes that current safe guards already in place are adequate. I would like to again point to history asserting that this is clearly not the case. Safe guards have failed before and my opponent has no way of proving that they won't again in the future. Here he also talks about hang trials. While this is a dandy point we are debating about jury nullification therefore this point is not under the resolution. Contrary to my opponents assertions, jury nullification does not undermine the judicial system it legitimizes it by nullifying unjust laws. Remember, it has been assumed NOT proven that: the law does not equal justice, and current safe guards already in place are adequate. Don't let my opponent blow jury nullification out of proportion wit his examples in this contention. On to my opponent's second and final contention. The first thing mentioned is "due process" (basically everyone is constitutionally entitled to equal consideration under the law. Jury nullification does not impact this. In a trial by jury everyone ha the potential to have a jury that will nullify. Just because every jury doesn't nullify doesn't make it unconstitutional (that's like saying just because not every judge delivers a "not guilty" verdict judges are unconstitutional). The same argument applies to his second point about an impartial jury (just because every jury is different doesn't make them unconstitutional). One may find that in the end constitutional arguments against jury nullification how no grounds in the truth. Remember the assumptions: 1 that the constitution is the ultimate protector of freedom, 2 that law equals justice, 3 universal application of the law is always appropriate, 4 safe guards already in place are adequate, and 5 that checks and balances are adequate or in some cases pertinent to the debate. These assumptions will be critical to today's debate.