R1 Summer Tournament: Jury Nullification

FrameworkMy valuation of expressly destroying doublethink will outweigh blamonkey's on the prevention of corruption and injustice; there are two reasons for this: Not understanding our doublethink leads to us being entrenched in our oppression, and The act of doublethink carries within it exposing corruption and injustice among other things; my value is broader and encompasses blamonkey's. And further, just focusing on the direct material consequences of answering the resolution as a "yes" or "no" works as a way of masking our oppression, because it is always present unless we critically examine its existence; prefer a politics of exposing oppression which serves as preventing corruption and injustice, as opposed to only trying to stop parts of corruption and injustice.There will be more analysis on this as the round and the debate itself progress.I. Jury Nullification Ignores SubjectivityThere is a difference between normal jury nullification and jury nullification used in the face of perceived injustice. While not incredibly obvious, the latter supposes a well-rounded and genuine feeling of injustice being brought against the accused. Both of the examples that blamonkey has given are examples of jury nullification in the broadest sense of the word; we weren't there so we cannot speak to the specifics, but the proof that Emmett Till (say his name) had been killed by his real murderers is overwhelming and was too at the time, however, the jury did not genuinely feel that Emmett Till's murderers had faced injustice by being there -- they legitimately thought of him that he was in the right, not that he was being injustly brought foward.The specific implicit biases that blamonkey had mentioned are exactly what sets this case apart from other examples of jury nullification in the face of perceived injustice. The reason for this is because implicit bias had led the jury believe that the murderers of Emmett Till were not guilty of any crime; they did not believe he was guilty, and because of that, they could not nullify the law in the face of perceived injustice. In many less words, Emmett Till is not a true example; and likewise with the police officers.But the heart of the argument blamonkey presented is that morality is subjective. This is probably true, that which is just for one person is injust for another, but anyone that wishes to go against the system of doublethink and provide innocence to a person in court allows for a critical consciousness, ought to have that right because it allows for whatever injustice they perceive to be eliminated. This exact critical consciousness allows for the elimination of the oppressive forces (prison industrial complex, black neighborhood policing, etc.) that the juror perceives. And blamonkey must remember than one single person does not have the ability to acquit any person on trial -- that would likely either result in a mistrial or a guilty status for the person on trial. So, the morals and question of "what is just?" should apply to the many people in the jury, which while do not reflect the community in its entirety, does represent at least part of it.II. ConstitutionalityDo not be mistaken -- the resolution serves as an opening discussion about whether jury nullification in the face of perceived injustice ought to be used, neither of us are fiating it's existence beyond just this website. It is a question of morality and ethics and whether it would be a good thing, but it does not make mention to whether or not the resolution comes into effect.With that said, there are multiple problems with my opponents' analysis, and most if it stems from the fact that the Constitution does not apply to juries, it applies to the Federal (and State, local, etc.) governments specifically. Look at the wording of the Second Amendment: “the right the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" Thus it protects against governmental intrusions and sets codes for government action. None of blamonkey's arguments about it "threatening the balance of the three branches of government", nor the impacts stemming from that, are anywhere close to the truth -- the jury isn't the government, and it allows for an appropriate check against oppressive forces used in courts around the nation -- it is the easiest check against the Judicial Branch we know of, the Executive and Legislative branches have very very little influence over courts.Ignore all of blamonkey's arguments here, they stem from a misreading of what the constitution stems from and what it protects, even misdiagnosing what the jury serves as in the government. None of the impacts read are relevant to the debate.III. We Create Fluidity in the LawBlamonkey starts off by writing, "[r]emember, the rule of law is universal and affects everyone," but such an interpretation of how the law exists and how the law is carried out is as far from the truth as humanly possible - it is undeniable that crime bills in the 1990's served as a way of harming black communities, even if the wording was ambiguous enough to also target white communities, it simply didn't through enforcement, and that is just one example of many.The arguments that blamonkey later presents about 'anarchy' and 'community morality' are just as far from the truth as before. These are all non-sequiturs and are non-unique to jury nullification in this instance, this idea of 'community morality' is ambiguous enough to apply to any action a jury takes -- did we descend into chaos when the Till murderers were acquitted? If not, then it is plain to see that this impact is nonesense.If a law specifically targets slaves who escaped in the South during and prior to the civil war, and that is unjust (we would agree), then there is no need to talk about how the community will descend into chaos when the community nullifies that instance of the law. Remember, jury nullification serves against perceived injustice when it is seen, it does not attack all laws that exist. We no longer enforce laws that dictate what to wear on certain days of the week because it is nonsense, and if anyone were to be brought to court for that, the jury should know that morals and ethics have changed since the writing of the law, and to let that injust act go.And even so, fluidity is inherently good, look back to the constructives, I provided an excellent reason for why fluidity is necessary, but mostly, it is to combat hyper-strict readings of the law; the word is always interpretable, so embrace that fact and allow for it to permute. This fluidity is perfect for my valuation of deconstructing our doublethink -- look to that as well when evaluating the debate.