On balance, jury nullification in the United States is just

Alright, let's do this. Burdens: Let's start by establishing these. We have equal burdens. It is my burden to show that the usage of jury nullification, on the whole, presents a net detriment. It is Pro's burden to show the opposite. Thus, it is not my burden to present a case that seeks to end the right to jury nullification. So, as I'm not seeking to end this right, the right itself isn't up for discussion. I must only show that its usage is generally harmful to justice. Building on that, I also need not argue that jury nullification is harmful in all instances, just as it is not my opponent's burden to show that every instance where jury nullification is used is beneficial to justice. We're comparing uses of jury nullification and attempting to outweigh one another on prevalence, likelihood and impact on justice. Justice: Pro leaves it at "giving each their due", which is insufficient. What is due, and to whom? Let's start with what's due. For this, we should look to Justicia, the blindfolded statue that adorns so many courthouses around the world, bearing a scale in one hand, a sword in the other. She's a representation of the basic principles of justice, symbolizing the importance of objective enforcement, ensuring balance and order in society.[1] She represents the basic restrictions on the process of seeking judgment through the legal system, most notably that individuals are due objectivity as a means of consistent application of the law. Onto the who. We could be talking about someone as specific as the defendant in a court case or as broad as the entire American public. Obviously, we are concerned with the defendant in this case, though we would be remiss if we ignored the broader implications of jury nullification in the general public. All possible sources affected should play a role in this debate. With that, I'll move into my case. Direct rebuttal next round. 1. The duty of a jury This can be determined by two things: their oaths and instructions. The oath is vague, but it mentions that jurors should "a true verdict render according to the evidence", which showcases the importance of evaluating the objective aspects of any given case. This does not necessarily mean that that evaluation precludes nullification, but it does require that the case itself be evaluated, as opposed to ignoring the evidence and merely attacking seeking the nullify the law itself. The instructions vary with the courts, and some courts, particularly the 10th Circuit Federal Court, have made it clear that jurors "must not substitute or follow [their] own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be" and similar language is included in every Circuit Court's instructions.[2] 2. Why do jurors nullify? Pro hasn't explored the common impetus behind the decisions of juries to nullify, and therefore how they're likely to behave in the majority of instances. Allow me to elaborate with examples A) They personally disagree with the law or are morally opposed to it One of the clearest examples of this is marijuana. Many people opposed to the idea that anyone should be punished for possession and/or sale of the illegal substance, and some groups are actually trying to spread a message that this is what jurors should do across the board, effectively eliminating any means to enforce the law.[3, 4] No doubt many readers will agree with this sentiment. I support legalizing marijuana. But we should be clear that this isn't just about marijuana. Any law an individual finds distasteful or unreasonable can be stated as a reason or a potential reason to nullify. There are plenty of other examples that are highly controversial, such as euthanasia,[5] stand your ground laws,[6] and age of consent laws.[7] Even if you agree with all of these, chances are you wouldn't agree with Paul Elam, who would vote to acquit on any rape case. Much of his views showcase a general disdain for how criminal justice is applied, which could be used to justify the use of nullification in any criminal trial.[8] He's even got a whole movement behind him, composed of some 30,000 members, any one of which could be on a given jury and take the opportunity to release a clearly guilty rapist back into the general public.[9, 10] Groups like this are not alone, as U.S. militia groups, many of whom are avid readers of the "Citizens Rule Book," believe that "they are 'above the law'", and use nullification as a means to subvert the justice system. This is made plain in their attempts to acquit militia members who are clearly responsible for violent acts. That sentiment resulted in a hung jury for three terrorists known as the "Phineas Priesthood," who were clearly guilty of multiple bank robberies and bombings.[3] B) They think other laws are paramount This issue includes all the same aspects as A), as well as jurors putting a given law into a broader context. A good example of this is gun control laws, which many believe contradict the Second Amendment.[11] Many feel that it is their duty to defend the Amendment, effectively allowing them to decide the constitutionality of any given issue and making them nearly equivalent in power to a majority of USSC justices. C) They view nullification as a way to right perceived wrongs This often has to do with racism to some degree. Notoriously, when all-white southern juries refused to convict those who murdered blacks and civil rights workers in the 50's and 60's.[12] But race-based nullifications still occur. Cases like the death of Luis Ramirez show that juries do nullify clearly violent hate crimes based on the race of the affected party.[13]. A more well known instance where nullification prevented justice from being served was the Rodney King trial, where jurors nullified to protect police who had clearly stepped over the line, the result of which brought about riots that cost the lives of 53 people and led to thousands of injuries.[14, 15]. Another form of race-based nullification swings the other way. This follows Paul Butler's proposal that jury nullification be used to acquit clearly guilty defendants in an effort to combat racial prejudice in the justice system, seeking to reduce the number of minority convictions.[3, 16] In this case, the sympathies that bring one to nullify are chiefly based on the color of one's skin, and end up entrenching racial divides and divorcing individuals from the means available that do address them.[17] Note a common theme with each of these reasons: none of them require that the juror analyze the evidence. None of these require nothing more than a juror bringing in their own biased views on what laws should be and how they should work. 3. How Nullifying is Unjust First, jurors should be required to evaluate the evidence. It's in the oaths they take and every set of instructions they receive, and yet the major potential reasons for why someone would engage in jury nullification necessarily ignores the evidence. Even if a jury is accomplishing some other goal as a result of nullifying, they are fundamentally unjust by breaking a basic contract they made with everyone in their court room. Within the context of the courtroom, breaking this contract utterly destroys justice by removing any fair understanding of how the jurors must perceive the court proceedings. Second, subjectivity is fundamentally the enemy of any consistent application of the law. Pro is entirely correct that individuals can and often do empathize with defendants, but there's a difference between objectively assessing the circumstances surrounding the defendants purported crimes (like intent and complicating factors), and deciding based on a crisis of conscience. The former assess relevant elements as objective facts, while the latter depends entirely on what each individual juror is emotionally affected by, which readily changes between individuals. The ways that people perceive the law, and its potential deterrent effects, are dramatically altered as a result, especially in places where people are more likely to be sympathetic. While a sentiment shared by a whole jury may be less subjective (though many subjective views are widely shared), a single juror seeking to nullify is sufficient for a hung jury in criminal trials. Thus, subjectivity need not even be shared to allow obviously guilty individuals to get off scott-free. This has dangerous implications for the legal system as a whole: "No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable".[18] Third, nullification gives jurors the power to dispense with laws at their individually. Jury nullification bypasses the electoral process, effectively invalidating laws that society has already approved by democratic elections. Including this as a means to alter laws is not just unjust in the courtroom, but for society as a whole, as it means that a small, random group of individuals can purposely ignore laws which have been approved either through representatives or propositions. Laws represent the will of a constitutionally checked majority, as well as trained and educated legislators. Pro's form of justice is a clear effort to subvert the systems we have in place for altering laws, allowing individual jurors to make any law they deem unjust unenforceable, effectively making it toothless in the process and invalidating representatives and the people they represent. 1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://bit.ly... 3. http://bit.ly... 4. http://bit.ly... 5. http://bit.ly... 6. http://bit.ly... 7. http://bit.ly... 8. http://bit.ly... 9. http://bit.ly... 10. http://bzfd.it... 11. http://bit.ly... 12. http://bit.ly... 13. http://bit.ly... 14. http://thebea.st... 15. http://bit.ly... 16. http://bit.ly... 17. http://bit.ly... 18. http://bit.ly...