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

Thanks for a timely response. ====Defense==== Vaue-my opponent claims are just asking a question about the juries decision. This is not a sufficient attack and got conceded with ego and said it was flawed. Now let me examine that if your were to make that argument(question) you would most likely loose in a debate round. Oh also no evidence=D. Now for my evidence In an article titled "License to Nullify: The Democratic and Constitutional Deficiencies of Authorized Jury Lawmaking," found in the June 1997 edition of the Yale Law Journal, Richard St. John answers with an emphatic "no. " He situates his analysis in the context of attempts by the FIJA (and similar groups) to make nullification a legally protected right by amending state constitutions. (As it stands, in most jurisdictions, juror instructions make it clear that the jury is to merely sift the facts and apply the law, not judge the merits of the law. ) While making the case against statutory reform, St. John offers several reasons why nullification is unjust. The first: it is patently undemocratic. (Evidence) Proponents of jury nullification have convincingly argued that nullifying juries make law. Although they would conclude from this that the jury might be understood as a lawmaking body parallel--or even superior--to the legislature,I will argue that this insight demonstrates the crucial and fatal flaw in the case for enactment of the jury nullification power. When legislatures delegate to juries the right to make law, the law becomes not more but less democratically legitimate. [J]uries can neither represent nor embody the community or its will. Not only do juries fail to reflect an adequate demographic sample of the community, but their voting rules make them minoritarian rather than majoritarian bodies. It is impossible to reform their minoritarian nature without undermining what little confidence we do have in their verdicts' representativeness. The paradox of supermajorities in all forms, of course, is the same: they tip the scales toward dissenters. St. John also notes that the "minorities" in the jury room are not even necessarily minorities in the wider community, which doubly means that the the mistrial (or, possibly, reduced charge) that results from a hung jury will not reflect the community's wishes. Showing juries are unmoral Value Criterion- the claim he makes is that since my v is flawed my VC MUST BE FLAWED, but I've shown you that my value isn't flawed therefore my v and vc are a legitimate argument. so vote con. C1-all he does is says that the gov. would give rights. Okay yes they would want to give rights but in a proper way and that can't be done through a jury because I showed you that they're bias. Second my evidence saying judgescan mke better education,. http://www.america.gov... states judges are more informed and make better decisions that juries giving the citizrights that aren't flawed. So showing that juries don't have a just check on the gov. A-he gives no warrants for this claim while I provide evidence(. http://www.time.com...) saying most juries are bias and thus hurts a just check on the gov. so you must vote con. The evidence says majority of juries are bias therefore my opponents claim is unue B- He says one individual will not over turn a whole judgment but my evidence I provided says one will sympathize with others making the judgment flawed. Also my opponent had no evidence. C-my bad for skipping D- this is a different argument than my C1 tagline. My sub D talks about due process rights which he must not know because he skips this and for his memory I provide him a link of what due process is(. http://en.wikipedia.org...) and since he dropped this please extend this argument across meaning since juries are letting people break the as explained in my card in sub point D they undermine a key process in the criminal justice system Now to my C2 He provides no evidence for this attack and makes a bias opinion and says that courts are just so they must make a nulify but this false because as my evidence(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. Only in a handful of states are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law of the case. Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law. Judges have worried that informing jurors of their power to nullify will lead to jury anarchy, with jurors following their own sympathies. They suggest that informing of the power to nullify will increase the number of hung juries. Some judges also have pointed out that jury nullification has had both positive and negative applications--the negative applications including some notorious cases in which all-white southern juries in the 1950s and 1960s refused to convict white supremacists for killing blacks or civil rights workers despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. Finally, some judges have argued that informing jurors of their power to nullify places too much weight on their shoulders--that is easier on jurors to simply decide facts, not the complex issues that may be presented in decisions about the morality or appropriateness of laws. ) says that courts are fearing that juries because they're doing bad so they won't make a just check showing my opponents claims are false. =========Observation================== I have provided evidence on my contentions and my attacks while my opponent has NO EVIDENCE on his/her attacks. ==============Attacks===================== v-on this he says the judge can be bias yet provides no evidence. Also he says a judge makes bad decisions but look at my evidence I'm about to provide you saying juries are "dumb" make dumb decisions (. http://www.law.umkc.edu...) says in the case of O. J Simpson the juries were racist had no education and they made the wrong decision and let a murder go on the loose. showing that jury nullification isn't a just check on the gov. vc- he has NO EVIDENCE while i provided some evidence saying juries sympathize alot All contentions- he doesn't explain his horrible claim ad all he talks about is ending slavery and labor hours which aren't related to this because the just check isn't being put on the people.