Jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice. (USA)

I affirm the resolution: in the United States criminal justice system, jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice. For today's debate I would like to offer the following definitions: Jury Nullification: the acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact. Injustice: unfair treatment : a situation in which the rights of a person or a group of people are ignored My core value for this round is societal welfare because the very purpose of law and the justice system is to benefit society by removing dangerous criminals and creating justice. My value criterion for this round is empowering the people because ultimately the people who make up society know what"s best for their society. Democracy, and America, are founded on the idea of majority rule because people will ultimately make the best and most moral decisions for themselves. Contention 1: Jury nullification gives power to the people which helps society. Sub point A: Jury nullification is a way of people showing what they think about a law: The ultimate purpose of any true justice system is to help society by removing and punishing people that are dangerous to it. Specifically, all democratic regimes are based on the idea of people possessing the power, believing that leaving the government to society itself is the best way to go about making decisions because the people are competent and are the best at knowing what is good for them. Keeping jury nullification allows the people to show what they think about a law. For example, if many marijuana cases were nullified this would be a clear indication that the people don"t think these laws are good for society, the laws need to be altered, or the sentences are unreasonable. Consider this, laws are made for the good of society so if society feels like a law is not beneficial the law's purpose is undermined. Ultimately, society should be the top priority in any democratic process especially in a justice system which is ultimately trying to keep society safe. Sub point B: In democracy juries should be judges of law as well as judges of fact. Consider why jury nullification happens in the first place. It is because there is discord between law, judgment, punishment, etc, and the very people they should be there for. People are capable of making reasonable choice and they generally have a better moral compass than public officials who are easily corrupted. People ultimately know what they need to survive under the basic instinct to survive. When a jury nullifies, it is because that law or sentence is so against that group, and therefore the communities personal conscience. People should not have an obligation to judge a man on a law that is immoral. It is important that people judge the righteousness of the law because that is how a law can be changed for the good of society. For example, in colonial days there was a trial known as the Zenger trial. What ultimately happened is that William Cosby, an abusive governor, arrested Zenger for publishing libels against him. In trial Zenger admitted that he published the articles and the judge urged the jury to find him guilty. However, the jurors consciences prohibited them from finding him that way because they thought his intents were justified and that the law was not helpful to their society because it put sanctions free speech and discouraged them from removing Cosby who was a terrible leader. This case encouraged many politicians in promoting freedom of speech and so it was written into the constitution. Clearly it is very important that jurors can first judge a law before the judge the man who violated it. It is completely illogical to hold the majority accountable to a law that none can see as beneficial, morals, or helpful to the society on balance. Contention 2: Jury nullification helps stop injustice. Sub point A: If we look at America"s government everything is a system of checks and balances. Without giving a jury a chance to nullify judges are overpowered since they get to decide the sentence. It ultimately gives judges all the power to decide how, to what extent, and if someone should be punished where nullification allows juries to stop the guilty verdict if the judge does not portray that he will give a fair sentence. More importantly it makes sure that unjust laws aren"t being made and destroying people's lives, liberty, health, or property. For example, in a recent case in May 2014 a female activist, Cecily Mcmillan was arrested for assault on a cop. However she explained how the police officer had assaulted her and she was severely bruised and instinctively swung her elbow in the officer's eye. In trial, unaware of their powers a jury they reluctantly voted for a guilty ballot. Later, she was sentenced with up to 7 years in prison. One juror said after they found out the sentence "Most just wanted her to do probation, maybe some community service. But now what I"m hearing is seven years in jail? That"s ludicrous. Even a year in jail is ridiculous." In the end a young 25 year old woman was sent to prison for instinctively protecting herself from an abusive cop. In this case the only thing that could have stopped this injustice is jury nullification. It would have saved a young woman from serving several years in prison. Sub point B: Jury nullification and it"s power to help create justice even better has developed America. In the 1850"s it was illegal to help a slave escape. However, many juries had trouble convicting these defendants because the intent was obviously just and the law that was put in place was corrupt. There are laws that have existed, and still exist, that do not help people maintain their lives, liberty, health, and property which are undeniably some of the things governments ought to protect most. America has always had jury nullification in the back pocket to help the people run the country. The founding fathers ultimately wanted a country where the most power fell on the people. Jury nullification doesn"t disregard law, it allows it to evolve in the most real world sense possible. Law flaws become most obvious in court and therefore jury nullification has been fundamental to America evolving. Contention 3: There are circumstances where jury nullification may be the only way to deliver a verdict. Jury nullification is often defined as going against the perceived fact or as a jury going against a judge's instruction.Therefore there would be circumstances where a judge's instruction would clash with the jury"s perception of fact, and in this case either decision would be nullification. For example, A judge in chicago name Thomas Maloney was convicted of corruption in 1993. He was the judge of 4 cases in which 3 were murder and urged the jury successfully to find all of the not guilty. In the end it turned out he was paid for this favor. However, in this situation no verdict could be made at all without jury nullification because jury nullification wouldn"t allow the jury to go against the judge's instructions or against the natural fact the jury perceived. Sometimes jury nullification is the only way to make any verdict, and clearly the jury making a verdict is crucial to the whole justice system and serving justice. If there was no jury nullification more judges could easily be like Maloney and use their power to completely eliminate a juries power. Questions: 1) What does my opponent think is the point of the American Justice System? 2) What does my opponent think is the best way for the American Justice system to make the MOST justice? (If you don't understand core value and value criterion you can ignore them and I will not use them (: )