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

Thanks, Pro. As we begin, I would like to emphasize that we have at least agreed on the relevant values to this case, namely societal welfare which is upheld by justice. However, a necessary factor in insuring true justice is objectivity. Objectivity and equality are vital to the existence of real justice, because without this the individual in question does not receive what is "properly due or merited". A vital part of this definition is receiving one"s dues- no more and no less. Unless my opponent contests that all individuals do at least share a common right to equal treatment regardless of arbitrary differences, then we can agree on this further exploration of the meaning of justice as well. Unless this is contested in subsequent rounds, I will progress under the assumption that this addition to our definition of justice is mutually agreed upon as what best upholds our common value of societal welfare. I.Improper Laws Do Not Require Jury Nullification as an Intrinsic Solution Although I believe this premise is universally applicable, it is much more difficult to contest in a political system like America"s. Justice is not furthered by the breaking of laws that one views as unjust, whether these breaches in law are active in nature and subsequently tried in court or passive breaches approved by a jury. If a law was universally viewed as corrupt or fundamentally incorrect, then it would cease to be a law through the proper channels of legal reform. However, because this is not the case in issues of jury nullification and there is a degree of controversy, subjectivism and vigilantism creep into the legal system. Although individuals have total control over their own actions and can determine whether to break or keep laws on a personal level, it is the duty of no individual to determine which of these laws are just or unjust based upon his own system of beliefs. If a law is significantly negative or is becoming unnecessary for the benefit of the society, it will inevitably be revoked through the proper legal proceedings. Should a law be undesirable but not to the extent to warrant the labor associated with promoting and advocating legal reform, then it has not reached a point worthy of the law"s revocation or nullification. This is the correct functioning of a democratic republic, not the pseudo-anarchic whims of the jury. Should the jury be allowed to decide which laws do and do not apply in the courtroom, is this not a clear undermining of societal welfare? Can a subjective legal system governed by the opinions of only a small jury truly be considered justice? No, a system such as jury nullification clearly does not uphold these values. An objective legal system that promotes complete equality is truly the best that we have. II.The Purpose of the Jury It seems that the two primary reasons for the jury that my opponent points out in her second contention are the jury"s ability to interpret poorly written laws and the ability to make situational exceptions, such as providing a necessary delineation between a murder trial in cold blood and one in self-defense. However, is this truly what jury nullification is? I do not contest that a jury is ideal for situations such as these, but neither of these are true examples of what jury nullification is. The currently uncontested definition of jury nullification is "where a jury deliberately rejects the evidence or refuses to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about a social issue or because the result dictated by the law is against the jury"s sense of justice or morality". This clearly is not the case with a law that is poorly written, and is also not the case when the jury takes into account relevant circumstances regarding a case. Declaring a man innocent for killing in self-defense is by no means jury nullification, it is simply a relevant situational factor. Therefore, it is not unfair to dismiss this contention, at least until further examples regarding the jury"s purpose in relation to nullification are produced. The resolution is affirmed, as I have shown that there are proper and positive alternatives to jury nullification that make it an unnecessary violation of justice and thus societal welfare.