On balance, jury nullification in the United States is just

Burdens Recall: this debate isn't about the right to nullify, nor is it about a limited set of case studies. We're comparing the result of nullification on justice, comparing their prevalence, likelihood and impact. I'll address Pro's responses to my case directly in R4, but I will clarify that my "framework" is solely a burdens analysis. Ther e's a difference between limiting the breadth of discussion and explaining what is and isn't necessary to win the debate. I can (and did) argue that the use of jury nullification as a whole is unjust. Justice While the use of jury nullification is old, its age doesn't imply that juries are acting justly by employing it. They're ignoring their chief duty (make evidence-based decisions) in favor of what amounts to biased efforts to protect the defendant. Defying basic duties is clearly unjust, so all Pro can manage is outweigh it. No simple task. Jury nullification bypasses the electoral process, effectively invalidating laws that society has already approved by democratic elections on a case-by-case basis. Including this as a means to alter laws is not just unjust in the courtroom, but also for society as a whole, encouraging small, random groups of individuals to purposely ignore laws which have been approved by or as a consequence of the democratic process. Laws represent the will of a constitutionally checked majority, as well as trained and educated legislators. Pro is supporting a system where small minorities can invalidate those laws, and thus those they represent, which is a massive injustice that applies to every American. In fact, he so strongly believes that nullification is more just that he's advocating it over the use of any democratic means to see laws changed. Pro's so diametrically opposed to the system as it stands, sees it as so utterly corrupt, that he'd argue to subvert it before engaging with it. Under that mentality, why should anyone seek to meet and talk to their representatives? Hell, why should anyone even care to vote? If the democratic system is so fundamentally flawed that a substantial majority of the population can do nothing to affect change, then why bother engaging in it at all? Disengagement creates tremendous harms, allowing the system to perpetuate itself, becoming more corrupt, increasing the practice of passing laws that enhance the tyrannical, corporatist government Pro believes is passing these laws for their own nefarious purposes. Many alternatives avoid these harms, including voting in new legislators, legally protesting, appealing the law in court, etc., and are thus more just. "Blind Legalism" I'm not sure why my opponent is accusing me of "blind legalism". Discretion doesn't require subjectivity. Societal expectations, community norms and intent are all part of the context and evidence behind a given crime, and all can and should be evaluated objectively. A jury of one's peers can improve knowledge of this context, but the need for subjectivity in these cases is entirely unclear from Pro's arguments. Pro wants jurors to be swayed by appeals to emotion, or even employ their personal opinion on whether or not the law should be applied at all, as a means to come to a decision. While we seek SOME variance based on context, I've shown that consistency is and should be paramount. Basing it on the juror's conscience increases variance massively, defying the basic tenets of justice and removing the blindfold from Justicia. Pro's supporting a version of discretion that encourages each juror to act as vigilantes driven by emotion to free people from the perceived shackles of a purportedly overbearing system. Whether it's 1 or 12,(and let's be clear: supporting nullification as Pro is doing leads not only to actual nullifications, but individuals seeking to nullify, which is what leads to hung juries) encouraging nullification encourages giving a very small minority a massive amount of power to invalidate the law as they see fit. He's also supporting the ability of individuals to treat the courtroom as their political playground, an opportunity to openly express and execute their distaste with certain laws by invalidating them, replacing any need to protest laws and governments with which they disagree (like euthanasia, marijuana, and other examples I presented) with the ability to negate them at the cost of justice for the wronged and the democratic process. But if it's more discretion Pro wants, then let's focus on sentencing. Most juries have absolutely no power over sentencing, as they're told "not to consider punishment when determining whether a criminal defendant is guilty or not guilty", which means they have three options: guilty, not guilty, or nullification.[1] Thus, nullification results in a very minimal increase in discretionary measures. Since a judge determines the sentencing, which includes a much broader array of options, their discretion is what we should care about, as it's that discretion that leads to more reasonable sentences. Reform has been achieved recently, and these efforts are being expanded to include many of the issues Pro discusses, including racial discrepancies and drug crimes.[2, 3] It's success is part of a long-building movement that has grown to encompass members of both sides of the political aisle.[4] Support jury nullification undermines this reform and takes the focus off of sentencing, replacing it on very limited set of decisions allowed to to untrained and unaccountable jurors. Pro's Logic Pro seems to be trying to solve for 2 injustices. The first injustice is excessive punishments, and the second is the continued enforcement of the laws behind them. These purposes are at odds. The former requires that we still punish, while the latter seeks to end their enforcement altogether. You cannot both address the thefts he cites appropriately by ensuring that the aggreived party is compensated and nullify the trial to change the three-strikes law. Rather than working to get the punishment down to the level of the crime, he would rather that these crimes go unpunished, that individuals be released from any responsibility for the crime they committed. Pro's argument is made all the weaker by the fact that he hasn't shown that jury nullification has any demonstrable effect on the law, only on individual cases. The logic he's presenting goes something like this: P1) Many punishments are unjustly meted out as a result of "blind legalism" P2) Jury nullification is the best means available to respond to these injustices C1) Juries should nullify On P1, what he's shown is that application of the law without understanding the context behind it (intent, circumstances, etc.) is bad. I agree, but as I've shown, a) the jurors don't have much control over the punishments inflicted on individuals, and b) jury nullification doesn't have a monopoly on discretion, or even empathy. Nullification merely encourages the use of empathy in jury decision-making, as well as political bias. Pro hasn't focused on P2. He hasn't advocated for any system of justice, solely asserting that the potential effectiveness of jury nullification is reason enough to support it. He's done nothing to show that jury nullification is a just means, or to explain how its efficiency makes nullification just. I've already shown both how other means are more just, and how this means is ineffective to alter purportedly egregious sentencing. Pro's Examples These actually reveal a major limitation of nullification. The jurors in each of these cases had the opportunity to nullify, and did not. Factors involved in that outcome aren't changing. Prosecutors will continue to keep information from jurors, regardless of whether nullification is available, and the laws are all still on the books despite its usage. We're not discussing some fantasy system in which more people become willing to use it, and Pro hasn't explained how that could change. That means jury nullification will only address an isolated number of cases and alter few, if any, laws. Pro's response to these laws is extreme: allow small groups of untrained, unaccountable people, representative of only a limited area (by Pro's own analysis), to upend the legal system by nullifying. Rather than responding to the problem that there's too much power in the hands of too few, driven by career and monetary motives, to affect too many with, he's supporting a system where even fewer people with untold ulterior motives nullify those laws unchecked, potentially having broad effects themselves. Pro is just perpetuating the problem in the reverse direction. Congress may not be representative enough, but they're certainly more accountable than any random jury. Yet Pro wants these people to affect policy by nullifying. Pro does a lot of claiming injustice without explaining what a just outcome for many of these criminals would have looked like, simply claiming that each case is excessive. Even if we buy that these cases represent unjust sentencing, I'd argue that the unjust means by which they were accomplished either exceeds or negates any increase in justice these afford, since the process of nullification is always unjust, whereas the resulting outcomes for individuals are only just via subjective reasoning regarding what kind of justice should be applied. Meanwhile, nullification of rape laws and mass murders continue from people like the 30,000 members of the men's rights movement and the 300,000 members of the Sovereign Citizen's Movement, leading to injustice in both the process and the outcome.[5] The effect on justice is actually more substantial in these instances, as each trial Pro is talking about affects only the defendants, whereas nullification in these trials can easily lead to unjust physical harms that go well beyond the courtroom. 1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://1.usa.gov... 3. http://cnn.it... 4. http://huff.to... 5. http://bit.ly...