in the united states, the principle of jury nullificatin is a just check on the government

Okay then. Here is where our definitions differ; I believe a crime to be something against the law that inflicts mental, physical, or emotional trauma on another person (or animal too, I suppose), or on the person's property. You believe it to be doing anything against the law. You see, I wouldn't consider self-abusive actions to be a crime. For instance, if there's a guy sitting in his room getting high, I figure that to be his own business, just as if you're shooting up heroine or anything else. I do not believe this to be something truly deserving a prison sentence (since what they're doing is as much of a punishment as anything) unless they are hurting someone else (ex: bad influence to their children, dealing drugs, hurting neighbors, driving under the influence of a drug, etc, etc). As I said though, I most certainly agree that if a person has been infallibly proved of committing a crime like murder or rape that he or she should be punished. "alot of your argument is about how it is unjust to allow the decision to fall into the hands of the judge, the judge doesnot make the decision, the jury do." I'm aware that the judge doesn't make the decision and the jury does. That would be why I am in the affirmative position of this resolution. I'm arguing why it is just to have jury nullification, and unjust not to. Therefor, yes, a lot of my argument is based on the fact that it is unjust to leave all power to the judge, because I'm attempting to prove my point that jury nullification is just, and trying to say why lacking it is unjust. I'm sorry if I didn't make that very clear. "use the scenario of a murder case, the defendant has evidence against him or her and there was a witness to the crime the judge is convinced that this person is guilty but the jury nullify the case ." You give no back up for this murder scenario. Jury nullification isn't used for something like this, it's used in cases where the law itself is questioned. I suppose you could be thinking of something like the O.J. Simpson case, in which the jury ruled "not guilty", but that wasn't jury nullification, that was simply a bad jury ruling. There is a difference. A jury ruling is based more on the infallible facts of the case, like yes this man did murder his neighbor, while jury nullification is used in a case where them law is thought to be unfair by the jury like, this man didn't pay his income tax. Very different. Please give me an actual case in which jury nullification has been used to set a murderer free over and over again. "now every thing could be okay, however majority chance is that when you let this person go that they will commit crime over and over, are you just going to keep nullifying the case?" Also, do you realize that even on the off chance that a murder case was nullified, and the same man came back to the same court, that the chances of them nullifying it over and over, every time they committed the crime is absurd? A jury is made up of common, everyday people. You find me one common, everyday person who would want to set a convicted murderer or rapist free. Then find me a group of them, a big enough group to make up the majority of the jury. I can guarantee that you are going to have an exponentially hard time doing this. And to then find an equally rare group of people for each murder case that the same man is charged with, so that he may be set free time and time again. It's so highly implausible that I don't believe that it really supports your statement of jury nullification being a danger to society. "yeah the government should be kept in check but jury nullification is not the act to use to do so." Alright, if jury nullification isn't a way to keep the government in check, then what do you propose? Why is it not a way to keep the government in check, and what is a better way to do this? "if it is thepeoples job to keep the government in line then how are the people to be kept in line?" I think that I already kind of answered that question in your cross examination, but I'll answer it again. The people make local laws, and try and keep their community safe since they have to live there. No one wants to live in a dangerous, scary place, so citizens are going to try and keep each other in line simply to lead secure, comfortable lives. Through the laws they make, and this want for a safe community, the people keep the people in line, just as the people keep the government in line. I'm not certain that I fully understand the question you presented me with though.