The United States ought to make jury nullification illegal.

PRO’s Sparf v. U. S. Argument Thank you for clarifying what you meant. I agree that that isn’t the crux of the debate so I don’t have much to say. PRO’s argument here which supports his ‘unconstitutional’ argument is the statement of an Eric Haynie. All Haynie’s arguments are quotes and opinions that support the rule of law and that it is vital. But as I’ve shown, nullification is also a vital part of society and the law system. I’ve given arguments that are superior to what Haynie quoted; arguments supporting nullification’s justifiability and constitutionality last round that remain unrefuted. In addition, the only part where Haynie got it wrong and what would make me forfeit the debate if he was right was his interpretation of the 6th Amendment that defendants are guaranteed a trial based exclusively on the evidence of record. Nowhere in the constitution are those words stated. PRO’s Appeals Court Argument First of all, PRO’s quote on the Appeals Court’s quoting of a trial judge is not sufficient to justify the subjectivity of Jury Nullification. All Judge Learned Hand stated in the Appeals Court’s report is that a person can leave his freedom at the hands of people who are not being held accountable for their verdict and that their verdict is final and no other consequences can follow. Again, I’ve already stated my response to an argument like this. PRO’s Checks in the System Argument I’m not really getting what PRO is trying to argue here, but voir dire is only one of the procedures I mentioned as an example of checking juries. That doesn’t mean that it 100% works. What does it have to do with nullification being impossible and unnecessary? Moving on, the only problems PRO mentioned that a juror may make is that they will judge according to their conscience. I will repeat: the jury’s obligation to check the government is essential to the justice system as it provides a substantial instrument for the evaluation of the rule of law and the system; the legal tool that is necessary in modern society. I’d like to quote the Founding Fathers who stated in the Declaration of Independence: “…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ” The jury’s right to nullify is definitely a justifiable check on the system and therefore it is considered an objective procedure and thus must remain legal. PRO’s Rebuttal to the Constitutionality Show me a reliable source that states that the jury is only the decider of the facts of the case because that is not so according to various voices, which advocate the jury’s job to judge both the facts and the law since it supplies and accommodates the alternative to consider other factors in the case besides the technicalities and language of the law. I’d like to quote Founding Father and the first Chief Justice, John Jay, who stated in his opinion in Georgia v. Brailsford: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within the juries’ power of decision… the juries have a right to take it upon themselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. " Though the jury isn’t obligated to reveal their reason on their verdict, it is still vital that they use their deciding power based on the facts and the law, while also judging the law. Nullification is used and should be used as a tool if a certain law or the prosecution of said law is unreasonable and unjustified. It is not used and shouldn’t be used because the jury feels that the defendant is heroic or misunderstood. If the Jury’s right to nullify is deprived, then their fundamental obligation to achieve their job is broken because the point of having a jury is then useless since they would be in a similar situation with the judge in a bench trial. Regarding PRO’s misinterpretation of the Magna Carta argument, the ‘law that already exists’ bit was the Georgia v. Brailsford case that officially declared the de-facto right of jurors to nullify. Next misinterpretation by PRO was my argument. That was not a contradiction. Again, the ‘law that already exists’ was the previously cited precedent, which made it lawful for juries to nullify a law if it feels justifiable to them to nullify it, even though it indirectly bypasses due process in which, at the same time upholds it (kind of like a compromise) Now, regarding illegalization and unconstitutionality, in order to illegalize Nullification, it should be declared unconstitutional first by SCOTUS by contradicting a previous ruling thus overturning it. This is achieved as time passes and when social or political changes occur. My opponent needs to prove that the social and political changes relating to Nullification are sufficient enough to overturn previous precedents. All he has argued is that juries are not objective when nullifying because of their prejudice towards the defendant. Illegalizing Jury Nullification is affecting jury duty. We are penalizing the jury in a way since making something illegal always involves punishment. If we illegalize nullification, we are forcing the jury to reveal how they reached a verdict. And this is a violation of traditional common law precedents that forbids the punishment on juries on reaching or revealing their verdicts. It also affects the 5th Amendment’s Double Jeopardy clause. Let’s return to the hypothetical of Jane killing John and that the jury acquitted Jane. Let’s assume that nullification was unconstitutional during the trial. The State found out the truth, issued warrants of arrest to the twelve jurors and retried Jane for the same murder. That example would then be a hypothetical indirect violation of Jane’s 5th Amendment rights. Lypold Aalysis Can I ask how you got the info that jurors often can’t talk due to jury silence? Next, the analysis my opponent quoted is highly disagreeable and doesn’t occur much since Jury Nullification is not that active in the States since juries only nullify between 3% to 4% on jury trials. Jury Nullification usually happens when jurors find the particular application of the law to be unreasonable or unjustifiable and not based on their bias towards the defendant. If that was the case, then (as I said) they should’ve been kicked out in voir dire. Here is a hypothetical we need to consider: Jane is married to John with two kids. John beats Jane repeatedly. Jane attempts to leave her husband lots of times but John keeps finding her or finds a way to keep her from leaving. Jane has had enough and doesn’t want to be abused again. Jane then eventually hits her husband while asleep with a hammer to the head fatally killing him. The State is now indicting her for Murder One. The jury then obviously has two options if the evidence is black and white: a) ‘Guilty’ – rendered if the jury agrees that she deliberately swung the hammer and that the killing was determined to be willful and premeditated, as what first degree murder defines. b) ‘Not Guilty’ – rendered if the jury concludes that the specific rule is in conflict to what was genuinely intended by the defendant. It’s like saying, “Hey, we think that this woman shouldn’t be charged with Murder One since that law wasn’t for situations or conditions like this,” The jury is actually judging the law on its reasonableness and objectivity. Since the Murder One rule applied to the circumstance of Jane killing her husband, which wasn’t objective. They did not judge Jane’s heroism or even considered it an issue (even if they did, there are still other justifiable reasons). That’s Jury Nullification. Since I’m running out of space, I’ll rest for now. I’ll continue this next round. Good luck.