R1 Summer Tournament: Jury Nullification

I'll only be responding to direct rebuttals to my constructives, as per the round structure. My opponent and I have agreed for him to waive this round because of him breaking that structure.I. DoublethinkBlamoney claims that juries will vie for power in ways that are in "not-so-great" ways, but this is a criminal misunderstanding of the argument being presented, as that was just one example of the way in which we see the law as doublethink. The core of my argument is that without jury nullification, we remain deluded in this idea that the law is both political and a-political, which then props up the State's use of oppressive legislation and enforcement because we never think to combat it directly. Doublethink is not directly removed from jury nullification but it is at least a starting point for raising critical conciousness (per Baudrillard).I shouldn't have to reiterate that Emmett Till and police are not examples of this resolution's use of jury nullification, because it was not in the face of perceived injustice, but rather, there is an idea that there actually does exist innocence -- biases trump facts, this is true, but that is not at all related to the resolution.When blamonkey claims "[a]lso, my opponent claims that because one dissenter would result in a hung jury holds no water in today’s debate," the argument is being misread here -- it is that there would be another trial that does not have these injustices being faced, or jury nullification will be used again, until everyone on the jury assumes the accused's innocence. I repeat, Emmett Till's terrible case is not an example of the resolution in action, continuing to say so is intellectual dishonesty.And blamonkey starts making non-sequitur arguments regarding if jury nullification is the best way to have change -- it probably isn't, but that's not related to this debate at all, we can still reform the system structurally yet also nullify the law when it is being presented unjustly! And the argument that "there is a chance of unjust rulings occurring due to skewed interests" isn't relevant when all people on the jury are seeing injustice, and if not all people see it, the jury is usually hung and a mistrial is declared.To recap: to think of the law as both subjective and objective removes all of our power to change its existence, only through a critical conciousness and the ability to say that we no longer accept the way the law is being presented, per Baudrillard, can we ever change it. To say it another way, only when we are able to see and vocalize the problems can we hope to solve them, and when we don't examine doublethink with the lens of jury nullification, we can never see and vocalize the problems.II. Perceived InjusticeThe jurors in many police trials and the Emmett Till trial did not believe there was a face of injustice being presented, but rather, that the law simply didn't apply to the accused. The distinction is hard to see but it is important to note: perceived injustice is when the case is seen as injust to convict, but the jurors had seen that there had actually been no guilt because the law didn't apply to cops or the Emmett Till murderers.Morality may be subjective but the law will always be so too, so allowing some flexibility within the law is the only way that we can acknowledge and embrace the fact that it is subjective. In the face of the rigidity of the way the law is said to be enforced, but the flexibility of its actual enforcement, we need to acknowledge the fact that the law will always be subjectively enforced and brought forth, and so, we need to find ways to make sure it is not brought upon people when it is unwarranted.-Thank you for the debate, blamonkey, it was certainly a good one. Good luck and again, I leave you with the quote I opened with,"The helots against the elites. Those who have the privilege of being able to speak also have that of saying no, an act whereby they express their critical consciousness."- Jean Baudrillard, Fragments