Discrimination is unjust

"A prosecutor will never bring to trial a case in which there is 'not necessary enough [evidence] to convict the man' (for it reflects badly upon his record, imposes costs on the state, etc.), and in the rare case that a prosecutor does decide to do so, a defense attorney can motion to dismiss charges on the grounds of insufficient evidence." There's no fine line between what enough evidence is and what isn't enough evidence. The prosecutor could take advantage of this by punishing anyone he hates that falls in this gray area, but letting his friends slide whenever it would seem legit. "Secondly, this thought experiment with the unfair jury suggests that incompetence (or irresponsibility) is a greater threat to the right to freedom of the accused than discrimination on the part of jurors...." Firstly, the entire pool of potential jurors might be racist. Secondly, a potential juror could hide his racist background until declaring whomever he hates guilty. This would be especially true in the cases shown with different examples of "racism," as they wouldn't be known for being racist, but they would have a secret prejudice. Thirdly, if the man who approves voir dires is also a racist, he can deny any voir dire against his friends, as there is a limited number of times in which one may ask for the removal of a potential juror with no reason. "Although it may be objected that a juror can hide his or her biases just to convict the accused is an objection with the fundamental structure and purpose of the jury system, not to the discriminatory practices of the individual juror (whose power is granted by the jury system)." If the juror uses discrimination, it doesn't matter how long he hides it. He's secretly corrupt, and therefore invalidates the right to a fair trial. A fair trial should be impartial, and any discrimination whatsoever removes this impartiality that is necessary to fulfill this right. "Thirdly, my opponent assumes all kinds of prejudice exhibit the same disposition. Although all of the jurors are, to some degree, 'racist' because they recognize a difference between races, there may be different degrees or reasons for prejudice in the jury...." For one thing, there may not be a difference. For another, it doesn't matter what their reasoning is. "The point is they do not just, as my opponent says, 'hate the defendant' simply because he is black. Their prejudice against the man because he is black may be based in ignorance or misunderstanding, and it is not possible for jurors to simply shove their ignorance and misunderstandings aside to become perfectly rational beings until the end of the trial." However, such discrimination would still make the trial unfair, which disrupts the right to a fair trial. "With that said, it is clear that discriminatory practices on the part of jurors represents a failure either of (a) the parties involved with the trial, or (b) the trial-by-jury system itself." For one thing, this concedes that there could be discriminatory practices on the part of jurors. This means that the existence of discrimination is a cause of failure in the trial-by-jury system. This failure makes the system unable to live up to the right to a fair trial. Thus, the discrimination of the jurors deprives a man of his right to a fair trial. My opponent makes a speech about discrimination and rights. However, this speech does not address the one right that I have specified, the right to a fair trial. This right is guaranteed to all citizens, but discrimination prevents this right from following through. In a society in which the jurors are prejudiced against blacks, can a black man have a fair trial? No. The jurors are against him from the start. We gave everybody the right to a fair trial. Discrimination is attempting to disrupt that right. When a right mentions in itself that it is "fair," and lives up to the definition of "fair" in its description, discrimination is no longer compatible with such a right. I quote from the Wiki article: "A fair and just trial might be impeded by: "Corruption or incompetence (judicial or otherwise)" My opponent said, "Secondly, this thought experiment with the unfair jury suggests that incompetence (or irresponsibility) is a greater threat to the right to freedom of the accused than discrimination on the part of jurors." Because incompetence is the cause of the examples of discrimination found in the hypothetical jury by my opponent, this shows that the incompetent discrimination impedes the right to a fair trial. Thus, the resolution is affirmed.