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

Resolved: In the United States, jury nullification is a just check on government. I negate the resolution. Value: Morality defined as the specific set of duties recognized as right by a particular culture. Thus, we are looking to what the culture of the United States considers moral, which, as the United States is democratic, is reflected in law. Criterion: Obedience to Justice defined as giving to each what he is owed for his moral actions. The word "just" in the resolution means that we are looking to what gives each what they deserve; in a word, their dues. People's dues are what one is owed because of one's moral actions. Thus, we must look to morality, and its impact on justice, to determine the resolution. "Justice" is defined as "giving each his due"; one's dues are decided by the combination of customs and moral principles that make up the body of law in a democratic nation. Contention 1: Jury Nullification undermines the government. A. Juries may be racist or bias An acquittal may come because the jurors found the defendant attractive, or were members of the same race, or harbored hatred toward the victim's race, or merely because they were tired of being sequestered for months. This possibility, which might fairly be called "lawless nullification," is protected by our Constitution not for its own sake, but because of our commitment to the secrecy of jury deliberations and the finality and unreview ability of their verdicts. (This is true in much the same way that the First Amendment protects the right to say many things that nobody would publicly hold up as a model of good civic behavior. ) The jury is there, by design, "to prevent oppression by the Government" and to "protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. " Duncan V. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 155-56(1968). B. Jury Nullification allows one individual, often a single-issue activist, to overturn the moral judgment of an entire civilization. Citizens should follow proper, available channels to change the law. Joseph Leone, "Proposed Amendment Undermines the Law," The Yale Herald, October 4, 2002 "A few examples of overzealous prosecution don't justify giving juries the power to legislate according to their whims. The laws in this country are flexible and subject to change, but if people strongly feel a law is faulty or injurious to their rights, they have every opportunity to come together and rally for a change in this law. And if a law is indeed detrimental, people should work to gather support to repeal it through the legislature. This should not sound new to anyone; it is how our democracy works. " D. Nullification undermines due process. Iowa State Bar Association, "Jury Nullification," The Iowa State Bar Association, 2001: "Nullification instructions affect important constitutional protections. When criminal charges are brought against an individual, an allegation is made that the defendant violated a particular provision of state law. Even if the evidence in the case proves that the defendant did not violate state law, a jury may decide to convict the defendant because they think the state law is not a good law. A nullification instruction allows people to be convicted of breaking laws based upon the belief of a small group of individuals as to what the law should be. This would result in persons being convicted without due process of law, because the act for which the person is convicted has not yet been declared illegal. In such cases, persons are also denied their constitutional right to know what he or she is accused of. Furthermore, a person's right to be presumed innocent and not guilty unless the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is lost if the jury can rely on 'conscientious consideration'. " CONTENTION 2: Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in fact have taken several steps to prevent it. In most jurisdictions, judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not. Only in a handful of states are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law of the case. Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law. A. This just proves that even in court cases, the judges find it unjust to use jury nullification in a trial. Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right, when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her intention to vote to nullify the law. B. Judges have worried that informing jurors of their power to nullify will lead to jury anarchy, with jurors following their own sympathies. They suggest that informing of the power to nullify will increase the number of hung juries. Some judges also have pointed out that jury nullification has had both positive and negative applications--the negative applications including some notorious cases in which all-white southern juries in the 1950s and 1960s refused to convict white supremacists for killing blacks or civil rights workers despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. Finally, some judges have argued that informing jurors of their power to nullify places too much weight on their shoulders--that is easier on jurors to simply decide facts, not the complex issues that may be presented in decisions about the morality or appropriateness of laws. Now to attack my opponents case His value from the aff world is flawed because as I've proven through my case juries may be racist or bias and don't support a just way because they base their decisions off of race also 99.9 percent of the defendants called before federal grand juries are indicted, buttress the belief -- and concern -- that prosecutors today almost always get what they want from a system originally set up to protect citizens from governmental overreaching. (. http://truthinjustice.org...) showing that the jury system is lenient and isn't spreading justice value criterion In this he makes an argument about protecting individual rights but this isn't true. Cross apply(use) the argument in my case and against his value that these juries aren't spreading justice and not protecting individual rights by being racist and . http://www.affirmativelinks.com... describes that juries may easy on the peple and don't deter crime Here I have effectively shown that his value and vc are flawed therefore his value and vc are not in consideration while my value is supported with common sense and good being so since this is ld debate "value debate" you should vote for the negative. now to his C1,C2,C3 all these arguments are non-resolutional because for the fact they talk about ending slavery and establishing freedom of press this is not related because the resolution is talking about juries influencing the GOVERNMENT so these arguments aren't valid. Also all these arguments are dated way back past 21st century and we must look to today in the United states. Also arguments I make are resolutional since i says how the gov. can replace juries jobs. Also he didn't show a significant impact or show links so please voe con.