Jury Nullification is a Constitutional Right in the United States

I would like to wrap up this debate by thanking Lord Josh for taking up this debate with me. It would seem that we have a common interest in Constitutional History and I look forward to debating him in the future on this and other such topics. I would like to begin by noting that Con has basically conceded defeat in his second round. In his concluding paragraph he stated: "So it does seem that jury nullification is part of the authority of the jury. And I agree that this is protected by the Constitution." He has affirmed the resolution with these two sentences, so the rest of his speech is irrelevent. In the interest of sport I will address his only other point - that, in practice, Jury Nullification is limited to determining the boundaries of a specific law. ------------- As I stated above, Con bases the remainder of his case on the claim that Jury Nullification has no precedent in practice. To support this he takes the above quote by John Jay and focuses on the less powerful aspects that, taken alone, seem to back up his claim. I will cite the quote in its entirety: >>>>>... on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision. — Chief Justice John Jay.<<<<< As you can see, taken out of context Con's claim could be perceived as true. However, in order to do that you must ignore the rest of the quote informing the jury that it is within their power to interpret or ignore the law if it be their choice. Look very carefully at the wording. Justice Jay lays out the jurisdiction of the jury (determine facts) and of the court (determine laws). Again, taken alone that seems to support Con's position. However, Jay goes on to inform the jury that it is within their lawful jurisdiction to determine the laws as well. This means that if a jury finds a law to be unjust they can determine not to apply said law to the specific case. As Con points out, Jay says that he trusts and hopes that juries will "pay respect" to the court by following the court's interpretation of law rather than their own. This statement in no way binds them and can only be considered an opinion and a hope of one man. This is further evident by the following sentence reiterating that interpreting laws lawfully falls within the jurisdiction of the jury. That takes care of setting the precedent in theory, how about it practice? Con claims that the historic practice of Jury Nullification is "limmited [sic] to the determination of what the law is, not whether the law itself is just." As I have suggested, the well known examples during the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Fugitive Slave Laws, and Alcohol Prohibition show jury nullification in practice. In all of these examples, juries regularly refused to convict based on the justness of the law in question. Below I list a number of sources all citing precisely this practice: http://www.friesian.com... - Para. 4, quote by Walter Williams. After the quotations on to the text: Paras. 7-9. http://www.isil.org... - Para. 12 entitled 'The Fugitive Slave Law' http://www.levellers.org... - Para. 26. The list goes on and on. To research specific cases would be both a waste of time and superfluous. ---------- CONCLUSION Con conceded the resolution in the second round of debate. For this reason I urge a vote in the affirmative. --------- As I mentioned before, I enjoyed this debate and look forward to future debates on Constitutional History and Theory with Lord Josh. Thank you.