R1 Summer Tournament: Jury Nullification

Rebuttal 1: Doublethink My opponent purported that the doublethink principle encompasses corruption and my framework as well. However, I have proven that we would actually exacerbate the problem. Remember, my opponent claims this. “Citizens willingly understand that the law is a political arena for which individuals vie for power through not-so-great ways (e.g., corruption, partisanism, etc.), yet they also believe that the law can be upheld through a-political means and through objective means (e.g., that judges always make objective decisions, that police enforce the law equally, etc.).” My opponent has yet to take into account that everyday citizen on juries are not immune to corruption and vie for power through “not-so-great-ways” as well. There is always an implicit bias when it comes to the law, as I have shown through my Harvard card (1). We are not removing the doublethink if we are simply deluding ourselves to believe in juries to judge equally with implicit biases, meaning we still uphold law through biased practices. Remember, the 12 people in a room determining the guilt or innocence of a defendant are not guaranteed to be less biased or corrupt than any lawmaker. I have offered an example of biases getting the better of juries through the Emmett Till case. In other words, we do not remove the double think in our system since people will still think that justice can be served in apolitical ways because of the jury nullification resolution being passed, yet what ends up happening is that juries are still corrupt and broken, as shown by juries’ reluctance to convict police officers who were clearly guilty (2) and the Emmett Till case, resulting in flawed decisions and continuing the doublethink. It would actually worsen the process because only twelve people are represented in a decision to nullify a law, meaning more entrenched oppression of the people, this time not from lawmakers. Also, my opponent claims that because one dissenter would result in a hung jury holds no water in today’s debate. Remember, it was multiple people who acquitted the murderer in the Emmett Till case, which is epitomizing injustice. My opponent also seems to be under the assumption that jury nullification is the only sound way to change law that is perceived as unjust. This is untrue as the Supreme Court, Congress, and the president do this on a regular basis through vetoing unjust laws, striking down unconstitutional laws, and representing people’s will in congressional debate. Finally, it should be mentioned that just because jury nullification would be able to occur with the passage of this resolution, this does not prevent the fact that many people will still be governed by unfair laws. The jury can only nullify laws that come to court and only, as my opponent has made clear, if all people in the jury agree. Progress is unlikely to be made to the effect of what my opponent vouches for. Also, there is a chance of unjust rulings occurring due to skewed interests. Rebuttal 2: Perceived injustice Cambridge defines injustice as being the condition of unfairness (3). Jury nullification in the face of perceived injustice still falls under the Emmett Till case as the jury found it unjust to convict the guilty party, thus they did not. This can go for the police officers as well. Also, my opponent concedes that morality is subjective, meaning every single impact still applies as people will use their own moral compass, no matter how outdated or unjust, and will apply it to court decisions. My opponent says it is worth it if the end goal is to get rid of the double think principle, however, I have already shown how the double think principle will not apply here as it will still remain in our criminal justice system even if we were to affirm the resolution. Rebuttal 3: Constitution No, the constitution is the law of the land and applies to people no matter how they are categorized. Juries fall under the constitution just as the Supreme Court does. Remember, the constitution itself states that all people have the right to an unbiased jury of people that decides whether the law was infringed or not (4). My opponent cannot claim that some are above the law or the constitution especially considering that there are literally 12 people deciding whether or not to overturn law, which is not representative of the whole and is against the 14th amendment’s equal application of the law clause. Rebuttal 4: Fluidity in the law I have shown that the fluidity in the law causes people to suffer under the application of the community morality imposed as opposed to law. Law is needed so equal application of a legal code is applied, so the person who commits a crime, regardless of color, socio-economic wealth, or opinions is given the same sentence. Without it, we see people convicting only those who they want to convict. I have given an example of police officers as people who are not convicted of crimes they have committed due to their standing as a police officer. My opponent claims that this will prevent hyper-strict readings of the law, however, by not making sure that the law is concrete, not only do we threaten the equal application of the law, but the efficacy of law itself. Anyone would technically be able to get away with a crime if it is considered against someone’s moral code, which is certainly unjust. If we are going to look towards to most fair system, then we are going to look toward a negative vote. My opponent also claims that my impact of descending into anarchy is nonsense and asks whether or not the Till case ended up making this country descend into chaos. However, this is conflating two different issues. By passing this resolution we show support for jury nullification, meaning more people will use it in court cases. This will lead, as shown by the Emmett Till cases and the police officer cases, to massive corruption and no rule of law as it can apply differently to different people. Finally, my opponent gives an example of a law that could easily be nullified to no consequence. I would agree that some laws need to be nullified as well, but by congress and not by a jury. Remember, we are not specifying when jury nullification happens except for when injustice is perceived. This could mean that fair laws could be called into question s well, except a person views the law as unjust, or a group of people. Conclusion My opponent’s double think principle will still occur, perceived injustice means absolutely nothing in today’s debate as it could literally apply anywhere and everywhere in a court case, my constitutional points still stand, and fluidity in the law occurs meaning community morality takes place of law. Clearly, this will warrant a negative vote to protect the interests of the US people and the criminal justice system as a whole. Sources 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...)