Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government.

I really am glad to be going up against an obviously experienced LD debater. Before we start out I would like to say that the rules come from . http://debatepedia.idebate.org.... I would like to defend my own case and attack my opponents case. Value/Criterion: My opponent first attacked my value of democracy because "the US isn't a democracy. " Although the USA isn't in fact a true democracy, it is a government that intends for people to get their voice heard. However, democracy is defined by the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives. The founding fathers clearly set up a democracy with this definition as evidenced in the constitution. Since the resolution is dealing with the USA, I believe that this value clearly fits the resolution. He also attacked my value by saying that juries are neither elected nor accountable and that the USA is set up so representatives are representing the people. However, my opponent is failing to see that sometimes the people need a direct voice to change unjust laws. For example, during the fugitive slave act, the majority of the northerners were against slavery, however, no law could be made because of the political consequences it would bring about in the south if the law was repealed. However, jury nullification was able to make the public's voices heard clearly. Another example is the health care reform recently passed. Although the majority of people opposed it (1), it was passed anyway because of congress's corruptness. Jury Nullification gives any person, no matter of race or belief, the ability to get their voice heard. My opponent attacked my criterion by saying that constitutionality is very insignificant in this debate. However, I would like to point out that the resolution states "in the United States". That being said, the constitution is very important because it is the foundation of our government. My opponent stated that nullification might trade constitutionality for public opinion, however, nullification has as he said the POTENTIAL to contradict the constitution. However, trial by jury never deals with the constitutionality of an issue. All those cases are handled by the supreme court, which is not made up of citizens, but rather Supreme Court Justices. Juries are usually only used in civil cases not dealing with constitutionality, but rather laws passed by congress. That being said, I find his attack on my criterion faulty at the best. Now moving on to my 1st contention. My opponent attacked my sub-point A by saying that even though the founding fathers intended nullification to be part of American government, by no means does this make it just. However, if my opponent attacks this part of the constitution, he might as well attack the rest of it as being unjust. The justice of society is founded on the constitution. Therefore, this attack should fall. My opponent's second attack on my case said that "Deciding the Law" has nothing to do with the power to not apply the law. However, if a person thinks that a law is bureaucratic or just plain unjust, nullification gives the jury an opportunity to properly voice their opinion and change the injustice. Is changing an unjust law not just? Finally my opponent said that my quote had nothing to do with my case. There is really no reason why this isn't applicable. A jury needs to just decide whether a person breaking the law was justified. My opponent failed to mention that judges often have their hands bureaucratically tied when it comes to offering a verdict. Juries don't have any bureaucratic limits to change injustice. That being said, my point should stand. He attacked my 2nd point by saying that telling juries about their nullification rights result in biases. However, he failed to state what kind of biases that would result in informing jurors about their right. That being said, I can't really refute the argument because the info is incomplete at most. He also said that jury nullification results in an unchecked power. However, because of this unchecked power, jurors will be able to determine a right verdict without fear of persecution by government. This is what the founding fathers justly intended it to be. Therefore, my point should stand. My opponent first attacked my second contention by saying that nullification doesn't appeal to minorities. However, I would like to bring up a point that the OJ Simpson trial exposed police racism. The trial clearly brought up the fact that some of the LA policemen were in fact racist. Another example is Nullification in the 1800s. Jurors in the North regular acquitted men accused of breaking the Fugitive Slave Act. If jury nullification was biased towards majority, how come these cases were made? The answer simply is that nullification lets the people determine what is morally correct, despite whether it involves a minority or majority. My opponent is acting like nullification hurts people today, where in reality, it reflects what the community thinks. His claim stating that nullification doesn't let the public get their voice heard is simply false because nullification has resulted many times in the supreme court examine if a law is right (fugitive slave act). As I explained earlier about the corruptness of the legislature, I think I make it clear that laws sometimes need to be acted upon directly. Finally, I will defend my 3rd contention. I believe my opponent is a little confused about the social contract. It was created by John Locke stating that the government has to do what's best for the people and the people overthrow the government if it isn't fulfilling its job. That being said, jury nullification is essential to make sure this contract can be upheld with minimal bloodshed. If a person decides to use civil disobedience to bring changes to a law corruptly created, like civil rights, jury nullification allows them to send a message while going unpunished. Its a win-win situation. Therefore, my contention 3 should stand. My value of democracy clearly is just and proves that jury nullification is just. My case should stand because I provided clear evidence showing that nullification is beneficial to many parties. Therefore, I ask for the strongest vote affirming the resolution.