In the United states, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government.

Opponent's case: "The primary function of an independent juror is not, as many people thing, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by the government. " Non-concur, it the responsibility of a juror to weigh evidence presented by both sides, the constitutional 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments protect citizens from tyrannical abuses. OPP Value: Freedom is the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints. We are already guaranteed this in the U. S. Constitution. Tyranny is closely associated with dictatorship: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc. ) Princeton wordnet OPP Criterion: Legitimately Rendering Justice. The U. S. government operates on a system of checks and balances. While admittedly imperfect, there are many safeguards that protect freedom without vigilante jurors ignoring evidence presented, and making decisions based on emotion or something other than factual evidence. OPP Observation: Jury nullification cannot possibly be the only defense of freedom, nor the best. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, who is often restricted on what evidence is actually admissible. The defendant is entitled to legal counsel who has a less strenuous task of proof. OPP Contention 1: Is it truly legitimate and just? Jurors for all intents and purposes are nothing more than "Temps" that usually have little to no knowledge of neither medical nor investigative procedure. Further, they are not legally accountable for the decisions they make. A jury can ignore evidence, and in essence, ignore not only the law, but also individual rights. OPP 1A: Jury nullification may protect the defendant, it may also harm the defendant while simultaneously protecting a guilty party. OPP 1B: While passionate, the argument of inference is not objective. It is circumstantial, and argumentative, and cannot be upheld. OPP 2: Not all laws are fair, nor legitimate. While jury nullification may serve as a vehicle to compensate for legal inadequacies, it is far from fair or legitimate. Two wrongs do not make a right. I negate the resolution as stated. I half expected to engage in an all out battle of the word "just". I thank my opponent for a more creative twist. My Value is Individual Rights. John Locke's 2nd Treatise was instrumental in our founding fathers building of what was to become the U. S. Individual Rights are paramount to that end. Criterion: Protection of Rights. If our rights are not firmly safeguarded, we will likely spiral into a much less desirable form of government. This includes playing by the rules. C-1: Jury Nullification undermines the judicial system. The justice system was built with safeguards in mind. Defense counsel strenuously argues to exclude evidence that is harmful to the defendant's case. Does that make the truth any less true? No, to the contrary, facts become inadmissible. This argument I am using is a tightrope, however, ultimately it only takes 1 hardheaded juror to create a hung jury. This could put a rapist or murderer back on the street. Is that just? It only takes 1 charismatic juror to convince fellow jurors to disregard a legal system that has been used effectively for over two centuries. This blatant disregard for law and factual evidence clearly undermines the justice system, and tramples upon individual rights. C-2: Jury nullification defies Constitutional Rights According to the 5th amendment, people are entitled to due process. According to the 6th amendment, people are entitled to trial by an impartial jury. These rights are violated when juries ignore the law, ignore facts, ignore evidence, and decide on their own. They have taken justice out of the hands of the people entrusted with it. They have taken the position to determine people's freedom or confinement, and have absolutely no legal requirement to explain their actions, nor any consequences for doing so. For these reasons, jury nullification can be a danger to society, a danger to individual rights, and a danger to Constitutional rights. It is neither just, nor moral, nor legitimate. Thank you.