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

== Definitions == Jury Nullification: Jury nullification is refusal to convict due to moral reasons, not a disregard to the facts. Juries which nullify generally accept the defendant’s guilt, but move to acquit because the law is unjust, the application is unjust, or the government broke the law during the procedure of acquiring evidence or in the trial itself. Juries used to have the power to judge both the laws and facts, but nullification itself is disregard for the laws, not the facts in regards to guilt [1]. Justice: This definition seems appropriate, but it must be noted equitable does not mean equal in legal terms, it means fair [2]. Thus, according to this definition, laws must be applied *fairly* and *justly* in order for them to be justified. == Defense == C1) Tyranny My opponent does not understand how nullification works. He says nullification is bad because they can determine the innocence or guilt of a person. This is untrue. Nullification means acquittal, not conviction. Nullification is a one way street: not-guilty, it NEVER causes a guilty verdict. Nullification is not tyrannical in the sense that it locks people up in jail. However, a system without nullification leads to more people in jail--something tyrannical in and of itself and has been used improperly in the past. Allowing juries to free people at will the opposite of tyranny. Putting someone in jail is arguably the harshest thing (other than execution) a government can do to a person. Nullification in no way shape or form is tyrannical. As noted, the government has many real life laws which harm people, and nullification is the best way to combat these extractive institutions. Con also claims that juries are not checked. This is untrue. There is an extensive jury selection process in order to ensure a fair trial. And his argument puts too little faith in the jury. As I will argue below, there is empirical evidence suggesting jurors act appropriately [3]. And, again, nullification only allows a not guilty verdict--not guilty ones. Allowing people to free other people, regardless as to how they are ‘checked’ by other powers, is not tyrannical. Promotion of not-guilty verdicts is one of the hallmarks of our justice system. Jury nullification is not a right--my opponent is correct. Though the judicial precedent agrees that the jury has the power to nullify [1]. Regardless, juries having the power to nullify or not has no bearing as to whether or not it is just. I also offered countless examples--prohibition, whistleblower, statutory rape, tyrannical governmental--laws which have existed in the US and have been combated effectively via nullification or have existed elsewhere which nullification in part prevents from occurring. Con drops these. Therefore, we can assume nullification has been--and is--instrumental in combating unjust laws which do affect the modern American. C2) Prosecutorial Discretion Con seems to assume nullification is unjust. Though he has yet to explain how allowing people to go free is unjust. It is not the lesser of two evils because nullification itself is a good. Just like all good things, it can be used for malice. Prosecutor Paul Butler argues we should not be worried “about jurors nullifying inappropriately” [4] as they act in an appropriate manner. Nullification is the *only* check on prosecutorial discretion and is the *only* immediate way to prevent unjust prosecution. Prosecutorial discretion can be used for good, and we should not abolish it outright like Con suggests. But it can also be used for malice--and nullification is the only check on this. Con may respond: we need a check on nullification (like C1). But we need a check on unjust guilty verdicts, not-guilty verdicts are, in and of themselves, not immoral, and do not need to be checked. He claims the supreme court says death qualification is legal and just. So what? The government sanctioning an action does not make it just. He has to explain why death qualification is just, not just that the government says it does. Nullification is the only way death qualification will disappear in the current judicial precedent. Thus, his argument works against him. Con also drops how police officers and prosecutors have the power to nullify--thus it makes no sense that a jury should not be allowed to nullify laws. I extend it. C3) Morality The solution to merely remove laws is a weak response. Nullification is immediate. Changing laws is a process which can take up to months or years--by then, the harm of the laws would have been too extreme. Yes, unjust laws need to be changed, but nullification needs to exist in the transitory periods. In a perfect world, this would never happen. But it does, and nullification is the *best* tool we have in order to combat idiotic laws. Governments also tend to add laws much faster then they tend to take them away. In 2013 there were 40,000 new laws were passed [5]. Con claims morality =/= justice. This is not really true. Just laws are by definition moral, and unjust laws immoral. There are so many laws on the books many of them are unjust and immoral. Nullification as I note above is the best tool in combating the fact that each citizen is guilty of 3 felonies per day--is Con arguing everyone reading this debate should be in prison? Is he arguing that would be justice? The laws should be changed, yes, but nullification needs to exist when the laws are not yet changed. C4) Challenge My opponent has not taken the challenge. Thus, he has failed to prove nullification prevents good laws from being enforced. == Rebuttals == R1) Justice Con claims for justice to prevail laws must be applied in the same ways always, and says ‘this is hard to deny’. But I disagree with this in every way, shape, and form. I already provided a real life example--such as statutory rape laws--which would land me in jail for a long period of time for committing a “crime” which in no way harms society. The law itself is ‘good’, but the specific application is unjust. It would be inefficient to reword all the laws in relation to statutory rape, when nullification is a much more efficient and speedy way to fix the problem. Unjust laws must not be applied. To apply unjust laws is to support the opposite of justice. In an ideal world, no unjust laws would exist and my opponent’s belief would be justified. But the world is not ideal, and unjust laws exist and are applied all the time. Allowing juries to nullify on occasion is preferable to allowing unjust laws to be enforced. Nullification is an instrumental part of justice as it prevents the government from enforcing unjust laws--or enforcing laws in an unjust manner (see statutory rape R1). Allowing jurors to nullify is preferable to always allowing governments the power to enforce unjust laws. R2) Jury Indictment This contention seems to put little faith in the jury system being fair (in regards to nullification). It seems to assume jurors move for nullification for unjust reasons. However, the “bulk of the research still shows that jurors do use information about their power to nullify in a circumscribed and careful manner” [3]. Thus, there is empirical evidence that jurors do act in a fair and careful manner in regards to whom they should nullify. Jurors act in accordance with morality. This contention simply does not understand how nullification works. Nullification works in only one direction: towards not guilty verdicts (as I have argued before many times). A jury cannot move towards a guilty verdict via nullification, they can only move towards a not guilty verdict. The practice of nullification itself is a bias against jury indictment and unjust prosecution. Due to the fact nullification deals with not-guilty verdicts and indictment results in guilty verdicts or accusations, they are inherently different. It is not hard to envision a society where nullification is common but indictment is not. Our system works to control guilty verdicts more than not-guilty ones. Our system is meant to give people the largest chance for acquittal in order to reduce the amount of innocent--or, in this case, those accused of victimless crimes-- convicted. A prosecutor who attempts to charge people of a crime must have a reason. But it does not follow that a not-guilty verdict needs a reason, as the effect on the defendant is much less. Nullification promotes not guilty verdicts (NOT guilty ones): something a proper system of justice would favor. ConclusionIs nullification subsersive of the law? Sure. But it is just. As prosecutor Paul Butler argues, “serve[s] a higher calling than law: justice”. Nullification is instrumental in the promotion of a fair and just legal system which serves as a check towards tyranny. 1. Darryl K. Brown. “Jury Nullification Within the Rule of Law,” Minnesota Law Review 81 (1997): 1149. 2. http://thelawdictionary.org... 3. http://www.niu.edu... 4. Paul Butler. “In Defense of Jury Nullification,” Litigation 31 (2004): 46-49. 5. http://www.usatoday.com... 6. http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu...;7. Paul Butler. “Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice System,” Yale Law Journal 105 (1995): 700.