In The United States, Jury Nullification Is A Just Check On Government

Alright, I'll refute negs case and then go on to defend mine. =Neg Case= I'd first like to take issue with Cons assertion that in order for society to function properly it must be uniformly organized. It's not that this is not true on some level, but I think it overestimates the degree of homogeneity in the United States and "society" is a deeply nebulous term as it encompasses what amounts to extraordinary differences between populations. This is the inevitable result of the trend of political centralization that's been occurring in the Western world for the past several centuries as rights and mores that were once decided by local communities become decided by ever distant central authorities. My analysis about the purpose of a jury trial to ensure a degree of fairness in the verdict by making sure the "crimes" committed were indeed crimes in the sense that they were committed with malice and criminal intent should take priority over my opponents blind legalism. Jury nullification should be preferred as it gives the populace a defense against government overreach. I. Unjust verdicts First of all, Con needs to provide some kind of quantification of this impact or else it's difficult to weigh. How often do these injustices occur in the status quo? Verdicts of the kind my opponent mentions are indicative of a much deeper societal rot than they are damning evidence against nullification. The impact is also mitigated by the fact that these kinds of verdicts lend a degree of credibility to complaints of oppression by minority populations. The acquittal of Emmit Tills killers remains one of the starkest examples of inequality in the criminal justice system and sparked protests attended by hundreds of thousands of people[1], helping to kickstart the civil rights movement. Note that I'm not arguing that these kinds of verdicts are *good*, but rather they don't have the impact Con wants them to have because they don't occur in a weird kind of secret bubble where no one can see them but instead cry out to the world loud and clearly that something must be done. My impacts should be preferred because I'm showing injustices that occur right now and can only be remedied by juries nullifying absurd laws and offers resistance to the recent trend of broad, sweeping laws that don't even require the prosecution to show criminal intent. Compare this to my opponents evidence that cites cases from the 60s. This is a status quo resolution so Con is obligated to show a current impact from this or you can throw it out.II. No distinction between good and bad law This contention amounts to an appeal to an authority that relies upon bare assertions. Chapman argues that jury nullification could be used in up to half of prosecutions. To which I say, so what? I embrace this disad. Prosecutors absolutely should be forced to defend why the crime is a real crime should the defense raise that argument. It's extremely dubious that the defense could make a good argument for domestic abuse being a crime. It's very likely that the defense could've made the argument that the jury shouldn't be allowed to ruin a mans life over a $2.50 pair of socks, had they been allowed to raise that argument. Most convictions in the United States are for truly victimless drug offenses, disproportionately leveled against the poor and the nonwhite. How is it unjust to remedy this in any way we can? Where are these examples of Jury's letting off men who beat their wives? Even if Con comes up and shows them, they still shouldn't be preferred because these are isolated incidences of injustice compared to my institutionalized injustices. Indeed, it seems to me that jury nullification is the ONLY thing that distinguishes between just and unjust laws. Blind legalism harms us all, remember the Huffington Post article: virtually every one of us has unwittingly committed a felony and if a prosecutor felt like ruining our lives, she could do so with imputiny. Jury nullification may not be a perfect system but it seems the risk is well worth the reward. Con further contends that it's unjust to have disparity in punishments and convictions based on individual preference, but this is a nonunique attack. Unless Con wants to completely change the justice system to allocate mandatory penalties in every crime, an argument I will gladly refute, a huge amount of subjectivity is inevitable. III. Anarchy This point is essentially a slippery slope fallacy--we know that jury nullification doesn't lead to anarchy because the right has existed for centuries and, indeed, constitutes the entire purpose of judging a man by the verdict of his peers. The problem with Sobeloff's argument is that jury nullification does not encourage people to disregard any law they don't like but rather gives them a reassurance that they will be treated fairly should the federal leviathan attempt to abuse its power. Indeed we can see that it's unjust laws that harm the legal system and the government far more than nullification ever could. California's three strikes law was so unjust that a juror literally started sobbing upon realizing what they had done by returning a guilty verdict. That harms the legitimacy of the government far more than nullification. In order for Sobeloff's argument to be correct, the citizen must be so certain that society at large agrees with him that the crime is not a crime that he's willing to take the risk of prosecution and do it anyway. If a law is so widely unpopular and unjust that your average citizen knows his peers won't convict him should he be prosecuted for breaking it, is breaking said law really a crime? If Cons legal positivism is the best philosophy, he hasn't proven so.All that nullification does in sure that only malum in se is prohibited. We should convict people for committing acts their peers deem to be criminal, not for breaking a law made at the whim of an unelected bureaucrat. =My case=Con argues that in order to secure justice everything has to be objective and equal. By making this argument, he's binding himself to a much more strict advocacy where everyone committing the same crime gets the same sentence without any regard to aggravating or mitigating factors you can't really give him this ground as his world has shocking levels of sentencing disparity as well. I. Unjust LawsCon argues that improper laws can be overturned through what he calls the proper legal proceedings. The problem with this argument is that it doesn't actually engage the meat of my contention where I argued how this is an impossibility. Again, it took liberal California 18 years to get rid of its three strikes law but we know that injustices resulting from it occurred literally 9 hours after its passing. Con doesn't solve for the here and now, but instead puts great faith in the system to fix laws. Unfortunately for Con, he didn't prove that the system will fix unjust laws (keep in mind that the war on drugs has been going on for over 40 years) nor did he respond to the warrant that even if we purge from the books those laws that are unjust, human error ensures that no law will be crafted to allow for a just outcome in every scenario. Con continually characterizes the idea of jury nullification as anarchic but this is uncompelling for four reasons: First, even if this was true he doesn't explain why this is bad. This response is mere rhetoric. Secondly, whatever impact he has simply doesn't outweigh. Compare Cons rhetoric to the actual instances of gross injustice I highlighted in my case. Thirdly, as I've previously shown governmental legitimacy is harmed far more by showing citizens that their government prosecutes people for crimes that aren't crimes and allows for the gross injustice of locking a man up forever because he stole a pair of socks. Fourthly we *know* this argument is invalid because the right to nullify has existed for centuries and British society didn't break down because juries refused to execute young paupers for pick pocketing. Con wants an objective legal system but he doesn't really explain how this is going to maximize societal welfare, nor does he really explain what this means. This is unfair to me as I'm left to attack only what I think he means and run the risk of building up and tearing down a straw man when Con actually means something completely differently. You can't vote on this kind of conjecture but you can vote on actual examples of oppression and injustice that could be remedied had jurors been aware of their right to nullify. II. The purpose of a juryCon doesn't dispute this contention but rather calls into question if this results in actual nullification. This is a crushing blow for Con, as a jury rejecting a poorly written law (like three strikes laws) because they find it unjust is a perfect example of jury nullification. You can vote Pro right here: Con agrees that juries have a higher purpose than truth seeking, and that purpose includes sheltering the unfairly prosecuted from government overreach. Con also does not dispute that there are wild differences in codes of behaviors between populations that are, nominally, supposed to be judged under the same sets of laws. I contend that in order for a crime to be committed the individual generally had to act with malice and criminal intent. Con disagrees in favor of blind legalism, in favor of prosecuting citizens for crimes that are not crimes, for laws they did not know existed. There are so many laws and regulations on the books that, as the WSJ explains[2], it's impossible to even count them. Even more troubling, the federal government has thrown its lot in with Con. I'm the only one offering a way out for the civilian. Vote Pro. 1. http://law2.umkc.edu...2.http://online.wsj.com...