Resolved: Jury Nullification is a just check on government (LD style)

John Stuart Mill once stated, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." Because I agree with Mill, I must stand in firm negation of the resolution. Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government. Before moving on to the negation case, it is important to clarify a few key terms in today's debate. •Jury Nullification-the act or idea that a jury finds a defendant innocent because the law itself is unjust, or is unjust in a particular application, and so should not be applied. (Kelly L. Ross of the Department of Philosophy) •Check-something that limits or restrains. •Civilized Community-the people who live in a particular place or region and usu. are linked by some common interests. •Government-the prosecution in a criminal case in its capacity as agents of the political unit. The complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out. To set the parameters of today's debate, I offer the following observations: •This is only dealing with jury nullification in the Unites States. •Rather than the actual act of jury nullification, this debate is about the principle. The value I will uphold in today's case is that of justice. Justice is defined as a scheme or system of law in which every person receives fair his or her fair due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal. This is the ultimate value in today's debate because without justice, the society of the United States would lose all morality and understanding and in a sense fear of its law. My value will be upheld through my criterion of equality, which is defined as likeness or sameness in quality, power, status, or degree. This upholds my value because each person in the United States has equal right and responsibility to follow each and every not only constitutional law but also those laws set by the federal government. Now I will move on to state my contentions: 1.The jury makes unfair rulings. A.The jury often doesn't know the full background. As well as not knowing that truth or background of the accused, they often do not even know their own rights. They are unaware that they even have the power to nullify a law. In order for one to truly nullify a law, they must actually understand that they are able to. Therefore, any ruling otherwise is unfair. According to Russ Emal of The Eagle Staff, "In a trial by jury, the judge's job is to referee the trial and provide neutral legal advice to the jury, beginning with a full and truthful explanation of a juror's rights and responsibilities." This means that is the jurors' right and power to nullify and if they are not informed then they are otherwise misinformed and cannot and should not justifiably nullify a law. This goes back to uphold my criterion of equality because all jurors must be fully aware of everything that is going on in the court, whether that be the background of the law or the background of the case. This in turn goes to uphold my value of justice because it is only just for each and every individual to be educated equally on all aspects. It is also unjust to take away rights or powers that the jurors may have by not informing them. Therefore, the entire principle of jury nullification is unjust. B.Bias and moral stance plays a part of the ruling instead of truth and facts. Aristotle once stated, "The law is reason free from passion." But in far too many instances, the jurors looking on the cases and the trials throw every bit of passion and moral opinion into their considerations. For what the jurors understand, which is to judge based on facts of law, they are bias on every situation because that is human nature. According to Doug Lender, "In most jurisdictions, judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not." In other words, because they are instructed to judge only the law and the facts of the action and case, that is exactly what they should do. He goes on to state, "Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right, when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her intention to vote to nullify the law." This means that jurors who are bias against a certain law, even before the moral persuasion of the attorneys and actual case, can be removed from the court. This goes to uphold my criterion of equality because every case needs to be completely unbias and free of moral and ethical opinion but based on fact in order for it to be equal among trials as well as jurors. This in turn goes to uphold my value of justice because it is just to all people and all trials to have everyone judge and look at trials completely unbiased. C.Jurors are not held punishable for the verdicts that they render. In all cases that are trial by jury, the jurors' verdict making is to be secret. Therefore, what the jurors' say, even if that say be unjustifiable or unreasonable, they can be held responsible and accountable but not punishable by law. According to the American Jury Institute, "Even where the jury's verdict of not guilty seems indefensible, that clause prevents the State from pursuing even the limited remedy of a new trial. This rule, by design, gives juries the power to ‘err upon the side of mercy' by entering ‘an unassailable but unreasonable verdict of not guilty.' This rule is designed to safeguard the jury's power ‘to arrive at a general verdict without having to support it by reasons or by a report of its deliberations,' and to protect its historic power to nullify or temper rules of law based on the jurors' sense of justice as conscience of the community." This means that the jurors do not even have to have warrants for the law that they nullify, but that they can even if they do not like the law. This in turn is bad that the jurors are not held punishable because if the verdict is completely unjust and completely unfair especially when the jurors do not have reasonable cause for the verdict. This goes to uphold my criterion of equality because each person who commits a crime should be held by the same standards of law: meaning that it would be unequal to change the law of nullify it in general to fit a specific way of thinking and then the jurors know that they are not to be punished for it. This in turn upholds my value of justice because if each person is held responsible for what they do and say then it will go to make each trial just and fair.