in the united states, the principle of jury nullificatin is a just check on the government

In affirmation to the resolution, I believe that jury nullification is most definitely a just check on government. First, allow me to set some definitions out to avoid any confusion in that aspect: 1) jury nullification- The process in which the jury may override a "guilty" charge if they deem the law by which he was decreed guilty morally unacceptable or unjust. 2) just- Something that is right, and guided by reason and fairness. This argument is based in the values of morality and human well being. My contentions are as follows: 1) It is the right and duty of the people to keep the government in check 2) One man placed in such power is easily corrupted 3) A judge's hands are tied 4)Laws themselves are frequently wrong or unjust, thereby needing something to stop them in action First Contention: It is the right and duty of the people to keep government in check It is and always has been the duty of the American populace to keep their government in check so as to prevent tyranny and injustice. The founding fathers stated this clearly 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". In political philosophy this appears a lot, and is called "the Right of Revolution". Perhaps this is believed to be an extreme statement, but I am sure that my opponent can understand my meaning. In a more succinct explanation, it is our job as the citizens of this nation to keep our government in line. What better way to handle this than in the court room where some of the most injustices are done? We only have to look back in history to see that the court room is not a haven that is free of the trouble of injustice and false judgment. Many times in history it has been a place of bribery and false accusations. That is simple fact. You are putting the life of one man into another man's hands and praying that he is correct in his decision. Second Contention: One man is easily corrupted Putting one man in such a high position of infallibility is a dangerous decision. You are putting that one man in charge of hundreds of people's lives. Under political and social pressure alone, it is easy to break and turn away from justice. Under that type of pressure, it is easy for a judge to interpret a law in a way that a man in a calmer situation wouldn't have done. With a jury, they're there for one case, one time. They don't have to worry about being chased down by the media or anything like that. They simply have to worry about their opinion on the matter at hand. Also, with a judge, you have one person and he may or may not be a good one, but in a jury, you have a larger amount of people with less of a chance for them all to be corrupt. Third Contention: A judge's hands are tied A judge may know a law is wrong, but if the legislature passed it then he must comply. Whether the law itself is fair or not, the judge has to follow through with it to an extent. He may lessen the punishment or interpret it differently, but he must follow it. A jury is the loophole to save the judge from sending a good person to prison. The jury is free to do what they think is right, without anything binding them to an immoral law. A judge does not have the luxury to judge only on morality and fairness, which brings me to my next and final point. Fourth Contention: Laws aren't always fair Laws are not always fair nor are they always right. Look back at the Alien and Sedition Acts, there were many good people saved from those laws by jury nullification. There have been many laws in the past discriminating against African Americans, women, etc. and in a good number of cases the people charged guilty were saved by the jury. It is foolish to think that suddenly our government is perfect and totally infallible. Why should we think that? In history, the government becomes MORE corrupt after time, it doesn't become less corrupt. So there's no reason to think that we're above making unfair laws today, just as we did yesterday. We have not reached any level of perfection or infallibility. We are human and, as is human nature, we make mistakes and perform injustice. Our government is not free of these human faults by any stretch of the imagination.