Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government.

1. Pro's standards a. The United States isn't a democracy. b. Democracy is never explained by Pro in terms of its parameters, context, or application to the resolution - much less its objective value. At best, it's a superficial value. c. In a democracy, power is vested in elected representatives who are usually guaranteed to represent their constituents; at least, to a certain extent. However, according to Andrew Leipold with USA Today, juries are neither elected nor accountable [http://findarticles.com...]; ergo, giving them a power as potent as that of nullification would pervert the right to a jury trial, and would turn the jury into a very antidemocratic institution. d. Constitutionality as a criterion has no place in this debate; the resolution asks whether nullification is, in a positive sense, a just check on government. At most, his criterion only determines the constitutional permissibility of the principle of nullification - it has no mechanism by which to weigh the justness of the principle itself. e. This criterion conflicts with a later argument Pro brings up about the "community's sense of justice"; because popular morality has an enormous potential to conflict with constitutional edict, Pro clearly hasn't an objective standard of evaluating the application of the principle, much less the laws being nullified. Because my opponent's standards fail to get the job done, I offer my own. 2. My standards Value: Justice Justice is defined by Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition, as the fair and proper administration of law. This is an important value in the United States because the justice system is set up primarily to apply laws in an objective fashion so as to impartially arbitrate disputes among men. If a law cannot be fairly and properly applied, the proper channels must be used so that the statute in question might be repaired or scrapped. Criterion: Objectivism Ayn Rand argues in The Virtue of Selfishness that the proper purpose of government is "as a policeman which protects man's rights... and settles disputes by rational rules". To ensure that laws are fairly and properly applied to that end, Rand states that the rules under which a government operates must be absolutely objective; otherwise, the use of force would remain solely in the hands of individuals, which contradicts the function of government as a policeman, and subjects individuals within a social setting to the equivalent of mob rule; ergo, objective law and the application thereof are the primary priorities of a just system. 3. Pro's first contention (sub-point A) a. The fact that the founders intended juries have the power of nullification in no way proves that the principle, as established, is a just check on government. That only means that the founders wanted something. And a desire in no way equates justification, regardless of how intelligent the founders may have been. b. "Deciding the law" only means that one has the power to interpret the meaning of the law by one's own standards. It in no way equates the power to refuse to apply the law. Unjust convictions (by whatever standard) need to be taken through the proper channels, be that through finding new legislators or appealing the verdict like it's going out of style. c. His quote from Thomas Jefferson has nothing to do with the affirmative's case: "Judges judge the law, but the jury's judge the facts. Juries are needed to achieve justice by providing unbiased opinions." That quote, in fact, seems to imply that a jury's role is only that of the fact-finder, while judges have the legal experience necessary to accurately judge the law. Furthermore, allowing jurors to nullify based on their own preconceived notions of justice detracts from the objective use of reason necessary to provide the "unbiased opinions" which Pro holds to be so very crucial. 4. Pro's first contention (sub-point B) a. The 6th Amendment guarantees a trial by an IMPARTIAL jury specifically; however, considering that the power to nullify opens the door to verdicts based on subjectivity and bias [http://www.bepress.com...] (i.e. inconsistency), it's pretty clear that allowing nullification licenses the violation of rights for the sake of satisfying one or more jurors' personal notion of justice. b. Look at what Pro says. Juries don't have to warrant their verdicts. Bad verdicts can't be punished. Acquittals can't be appealed. If you want to view the resolution from a constitutional perspective, it's pretty clear that the constitutional principle of checks and balances is being entirely violated by allowing jurors the unreviewable, unaccountable, unchecked power of nullification. c. The biases to which the court makes itself vulnerable by glorifying nullification make it extremely difficult to fairly apply the law, since the administration of law is no longer being governed by rational discretion and objective arbitration, but by the diverse, subjective whims of a few randomly-selected jurors. Preventing the justice system from doing its job correctly isn't the same as justly checking government. 5. Pro's second contention a. First of all, there's no such thing as "the people"; only an aggregate sum of individuals. To say that "the people" have a right to determine A) whether a law is corrupt, and B) whether they want to apply that law, is to assume that a majority of individuals (by virtue of being the most numerous) have the right to not only determine justice, but to administer it as they please, regardless of the pleas and complaints of individuals outside of that majority. That, as we know, is an appeal to popularity. b. Even assuming "popular justice" to be a proper code of ethics, people within a society have such diverse values and ideologies that it would be entirely irrational to claim that 12 randomly selected jurors could accurately represent the entire spectrum of values within a given community. c. Given that jurors are neither elected nor accountable (as earlier evidence and analysis proves), it's pretty clear that a jury taking justice into its own subjective hands is the antithesis of policymaking in a democratic society. d. Given also that, as Pro earlier argues, juries do not warrant their verdicts, the government isn't going to hear the "voice of the people" beyond the voice that says "not guilty". 6. Pro's third contention a. I don't think that anyone ever signed a "social contract". I know I didn't. b. All that nullification does is ignore a law; it doesn't change the law, nor stop people from being subject to it, nor does it even guarantee that unjust laws are going to be targeted. The only guarantee you get with nullification is that SOME law will be ignored. Simply put, nullification isn't a revolution. c. Keep in mind that Pro has no objective standard for the jury to employ when determining whether a law is just or unjust. All that he provides us with is that the jury, somehow, is a tool of the public; ergo, he gives us nothing but popularity to judge upon. d. If Pro wants to use nullification as an "accountability check", he ought to recall that, as he so vehemently argues, there aren't any checks on the jury's power to nullify a law. I hope I kept it pretty basic, since there are two rounds to go; either way, I look forward to Pro's rebuttal, and I await Round 2.