In The United States, Jury Nullification Is A Just Check On Government

Thanks for the debate, Aburk. =Framework=Vote on whichever world provides the most justice. In this final round, I will go over the arguments made in the debate and attempt to prove that I have clearly provided a world with a greater amount of justice. =My case=Let's start with my case. I. Deal immediately with unjust lawsIn my first contention, I showed how political conditions often cause absurd and unjust laws and that human error ensures that no law can be perfectly crafted--this is why nullification is an ideal safeguard. Con never really managed to refute this argument--in his final round, regarding this argument Con only notes two things: that he's not advocating an inflexible legal system and that anarchy is bad. This shows pretty clearly why you should vote Pro because this is probably the most important contention and Cons final rebuttal fails to really address it. Indeed, I did not straw man my opponent but rather pointed out that his argument against jury nullification regarding the lack of objectivity and equality is non unique unless he wants to completely reform the system. Since he's now made it clear that he doesn't, you can throw out his attack about inequality as a shocking degree of inequality between sentences for similar crimes exists in his world as well. This is extremely important: Con has basically lost the debate here. A loss on this contention would be a crushing blow for Con as it undercuts his entire idea of a free and democratic system eventually doing away with unjust laws. Even if he were to prove that all unjust laws eventually get done away with (which is very dubious--again consider that the drug was has been going on 40+ years), he doesn't solve for those individuals unfortunate enough to commit their "crimes" while the unjust law reigned. I solve for the here and now, Con has no equivalent mechanism. Keep in mind that these laws are so blatantly unjust that the prosecutors are forced to use underhanded tactics like hiding that they're seeking life imprisonment because they know that if juries knew the implications of a guilty verdict they would nullify.Moreover it's worth noting that we can't lose sight of the real issue at stake here. We are dealing with peoples lives here; my case showed how a mans life was taken away, forever ruined over a $2.50 pair of socks. Another over an air conditioner. Con never really attempted to engage these examples because he can't, the best he can hope for is some vague need for equality outweighing this, but when compared to the thousands (at least) of lives ruined by draconian laws it's clear who provides more justice. Nullification saves these individuals from a fate so terribly unfair it sounds like it comes out of a black comedy. Cons world stares blankly at their suffering but gives them the comfort of knowing that they will be followed by many, many more victims before our backlogged democratic process finally gets around to appealing bad policy. II. The purpose of a JuryOn this contention, too, Cons response is almost entirely defensive. Con argues that the Jury does have a purpose in helping to interpret laws. He disagrees, however, that this is true nullification but this doesn't exactly follow. If the Jury throws out the law because they think the fact that the offense was very small (say, two dollars and fifty cents) and doesn't warrant the punishment the sloppily written law metes out, they are engaging in nullification by definition as they are nullifying the law due to their sense of justice. The problem for Con regarding his support for mitigating factors is that the law cannot possibly account for *every* mitigating factor (like, say, the crime you're going to imprison someone forever for involving a pair of socks), so sometimes the jury has to act using extrajudicial information that appeals to their sense of justice in the same way a legally enshrined mitigating factor would. I contend that these kinds of judgements are the *entire purpose* of a jury.Con never really addressed the meat of what I was trying to argue: that the *point* of having a jury of an individuals peers is because standards across the country are *different*. It's wrong to punish someone for committing an act that they and their community do not consider a crime and due to the endless political centralization that has been occurring in the past few centuries, it is inevitable that states will have populations of widely varying standards of morality inside their borders. Thus the principle of jury nullification is indeed a just check on government because it protects individuals from outrageous overreach. Remember, there are now so many laws and rules that counting them is virtually impossible. Con closes his rebuttal to my case by arguing that we need to always follow every law lest societal welfare decline. Unfortunately for Con, we didn't see any of these impacts occurring in the rich history of juries nullifying laws--England didn't collapse because juries spared pick pocketing orphans the death penalty by handing down a not guilty verdict. My contentions stand. The only way to protect justice is to endorse nullification. =Con case=Con argues that it's immoral to endorse a system that establishes any kind of inequality other than that brought on by the choices of the individual themselves. This is deeply problematic on a practical level (for example, Cons position would prohibit parents sending their children to superior private schools because this perpetuates inequality) but more importantly it speaks volumes about the differences between what Con is advocating and what I am. Con is relying upon this abstract concept to persuade you, as opposed to the concrete examples I give. Voting for Con is the equivalent of saying it's better for *everyone* indicted under horribly unjust laws to be convicted rather than only *some*. Jury nullification may not be perfect, but it's a better way to save as many people as we can than the mechanism Con offers: wait until the law is appealed and ignore the convictions before that. I. Unjust verdicts This contention can be rejected due to Cons failure to answer the question of how often this kind of thing occurs. It's impossible to weigh the impact of cases from the 1960s against cases from the status quo. There are all kinds of civil rights organizations in this country, if the murderers of blacks or other minorities were routinely (or ever) getting off due to corrupt juries, there would be information about if for Con to cite. Remember you can only judge a debate by the information presented within it and Con gives absolutely no reason to believe that this is widespread enough to outweigh the good aspects of jury nullification. Con also misunderstands how, historically, these kinds of verdicts have helped to kick start national protests that moved along the civil rights movement. This ripple effect does not make these verdicts *good*, but they make them *less bad* than they otherwise would be. Compare this to the cases I bring up that lack any kind of mitigation.II. Good vs Bad lawCons argument here is confusing. He again argues that he's taking the "middle ground" and that we can just appeal bad legislation through the proper democratic process, but this ignores two key ideas that I've expressed very clearly throughout this debate that Con never really addressed. The first is that this is a falsehood. We *know* examples of unjust laws that took nearly two decades to repeal, that are still on the books in many states. If the proper democratic process worked, we wouldn't need nullification but human error ensures that we need as many safeguards are possible. The second is this whole idea of human error. Con doesn't compellingly sell the case that we can properly write laws that lead to just outcomes in every circumstance because we can't. Human error is inevitable which is why it is ideal to give jurors leverage to mete out the outcome that justice warrants. One can do no better than to once again quote Lysander Spooner: "Those who deny the right of a jury to protect an individual in resisting an unjust law of the government, deny him all defence whatsoever against oppression."III. AnarchyCon continues to argue that there are legitimate means to dealing with unjust laws other than nullification but other than through the government, a path we've already seen fails, he's failed to articulate them. Maybe it isn't ideal to have a jury of peers decide every case on their own moral judgement, but given the choice between that and having no alternative to following unjust laws and the convictions they entail, it's clear that the benefits is much greater than the risk. Con goes for the racial angle again, but there's a reason that Jury selection involves both the defense and prosecuting attorneys and changes of venues can be requested. These things are institutions that grew organically out of the legal system as it evolved to distribute the best outcomes, much the same as jury nullification. In the modern world cases of juries letting off criminals due to racial animus is sufficiently rare that Con couldn't find any examples in the past 50 years to cite. The resolution is affirmed.