Jury Nullification (full resolution in R1)

Introduction Thanks to my opponent for providing a fast response. For the first time in a while, I am having fun with a debate because there are such good arguments for each side and I believe that it is a truly balanced topic. On to the rebuttals! re: The Law as Integrity The opening statement in this contention is crucial: “it is the “law” that the jury is tasked with upholding.” Nullification only attacks the codified set of laws that promises social order throughout the nation. Nonsensical laws and those without reason do not belong in society but simply nullifying is not the way to go about changing this. I agree with my opponent’s observation that the principles of the laws passed are just as important as the statutes themselves. Standards can change and shift over time, as per the purpose of our Constitution. However, to say that Jury Nullification is a step towards these ideals is like saying that picking a weed will rid your garden of them forever. To attack, repeal, and change laws that are nonsensical, without reasoning, or unjust, we need to use the age old methods like petitioning our courts, petitioning our lawmakers, and in some cases, using the strength of a reform movement to achieve change. Principles of governing and acceptable reasoning are needed in most all of our laws, and when the opposite is achieved, nullification by a jury will not solve this problem, only change the verdict of one case. This is why the established mechanisms are still useable and can/will result in change when the public feels that a law is unjust or unfairly applied. As my opponent correctly points out, it is the law that the jury is tasked with upholding. To nullify written law only hurts the social order established by codified laws and generates a problem of unenforceability. re: Nullification My opponent brings up a few cases that are seen around the nation constantly. Mandatory minimums and three strike laws are arguably unjust, yes. However, to acquit defendants based on the personal opinion that these laws are unjust or unfairly applied in specific cases is detrimental to society. If a jury can acquit someone who undoubtedly broke a law based on a perception of unjustness, sympathizers around the country feel that they can do the same if they are so inclined. These laws were written to be enforced around our nation, and when a jury nullifies, they are removing the duty of the government to enforce, which negates the purpose of having laws in the first place. Sponsoring jury nullification in our courts is, in effect, arguing against the place of laws in our government. Written law can always be amended, repealed, or challenged in court. To achieve any of these three, there are mechanisms in place that have been established for hundreds of years as safeguards against unjust or misapplied law. Of course lawmakers are never going to know the extent of their law and how it might affect every constituent as time goes on. That is why our government is flexible in this respect, as people can challenge the constitutionality of the law, repeal the law, or amend it to fix problems that may arise. JRNL is not and should not be the last line of defense for a defendant. Nullification is not a means to an end, and should not be used to right the wrongs of perceived injustice when safeguards are in place to prevent the types of injustices or unfairness a jury may perceive in any given case. Eliminating JRNL would not inhibit the legal system, it would enable it to do its job. Problems that arise within passed legislation is not for jurors to perceive an act in accordance with, it is for the people and legislators to determine, and follow the best course of action based upon that conclusion. “Let’s obliterate a key tool we have of stopping the malfunctions in the system.” This statement, in its entirety, is a complete misunderstanding of jury nullification. It is not a key tool we have in stopping malfunctions, that is what our established mechanisms are for, such as challenges in court or amending/repealing the law itself. Also, my opponent displays JRNL as a means to an end. This is not the case. JRNL will not instantaneously change the law, it will only acquit a defendant in one case, leaving perceivably unjust laws around the country to be enforced by juries who will uphold the actual integrity of the law. Only when our existing mechanisms are utilized will we be able to bring about actual change in our legal system. The final part of Making Exceptions is interesting. Three strike laws have a purpose, mandatory minimums have a purpose, and laws against theft have a purpose. Three strike laws and mandatory minimums were implemented to combat rampant drug use, now they are widely regarded as racist, based on a study from the American Civil Liberties Union [1]. One could see how these verdicts are unfair, but one case of nullification that results in acquitting a defendant will not solve injustice in our legal system. I am not arguing that verdicts upholding laws that are perceived as unjust are favorable, but perceived injustice does not warrant inhibiting the government from enforcing its own laws. All applications of law are not good, and therefore we need to utilize our avenues of change to remove injustices and misapplications in our codified set of laws. Jury nullification does not allow juries to “void” oppressive laws or misapplications of law, it removes the government’s ability to enforce their law upon people who are guilty of the crime that is charged. In the case of Zenger, the jury did nullify because they perceived the law at hand as unjust. This however did not provide an immediate remedy or solution to the unjust judicial proceedings at the time, it only created one instance in which a defendant was acquitted. To truly rid our system of these injustices, we have to use our established mechanisms of amending, repealing, and challenging to bring about change. The presence of a jury is not a “check on power”, it is to look at the case and return a verdict accordingly; whether or not the defendant is: a. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials, and b. Balance the probability of guilt or innocence in a civil trial [2]. Their sole job is to analyze the facts of the case and return a verdict accordingly. It is not the place of the jurors to interpret written law. In fact, Citizens Information [2] defines the role of the jury as, “Decide the facts of the case only, take directions from the trial judge whether or not you disagree with him/her, and remain impartial and independent.” Our peers judge us because our founders meant for our trials to be fair and free from bias. Juries were not meant to challenge the government but to rule on cases, which is the default purpose of juries around the world. JRNL occurs when juries overstep their intended purpose, to the detriment of the integrity of the law. To say that juries are the stooges of government is incorrect, for they weigh the facts of the case and return a verdict that reflects that decision making process. My opponent’s quote suggests that juries are the ultimate safeguard against government tyranny in the legal system. Yes, this is why we have juries made up of our peers. Juries are not to be used against the government in nullification, but to weigh in on the crime that the defendant is charged of. As for racial biases, JRNL is NOT a means to an end. To address the issue of systemic racism one must change the law itself, not declare it null in the court of law while serving on a jury. re: Conclusion While the laws passed may be tied to the principles that went into writing them, the nullification of them by the jury removes the purpose of laws in the first place. If it is just up to the juries to nullify a law when they perceive injustice or immorality, how is the government supposed to maintain and enforce a set of laws? This would negate the purpose of having laws in the first place, therefore abolishing the principle of social order. If a law is unworthy of being upheld, safeguards such as petitioning courts, lawmakers, and the government should be used to bring about change. These methods are preferable to jury nullification because they do not void the need for laws in the first place, they are fair challenges of them, and will succeed if enough of the public is backing them. I trust the general public to make decisions about injustice or immorality more so than a few jurors. My opponent arguing for the law’s integrity is contradictory, given that what he would propose would bring an end to the enforcing of our set of laws if we gave the jurors the power to nullify in court. Lawmakers may face limitations, and therefore we should trust our elected representatives to amend or repeal said law if there is substantial enough outcry from the general populous. Overview Only by prohibiting JRNL can we uphold the set of laws that gives our nation social order. If we remove the ability to enforce them through nullification, we ought not to have laws at all. It is for the general public to sponsor amendments, changes, or challenges to law, either through petition or elected lawmakers, not a select few jurors. In a society where social order stems from an enforceable set of laws, JRNL cannot exist, and existing mechanisms must be utilized. On to you Pro! [1] https://www.aclu.org... [2] http://www.citizensinformation.ie...