Jury Nullification (full resolution in R1)

Perception 1. Uniqueness Bsh says that in my arguments I am attacking all juries for their emotional flaw, as they are human beings. This is not the case, and my opponent is making assumptions here. There is no doubt that emotions are a huge factor in the verdicts that jurors return, but to nullify a law based on an emotionally swayed perception of immorality or injustice is not what our society needs. We cannot let emotions in a courtroom dictate how the government enforces its laws, or worse, damage the integrity of our codified set of laws. This is detrimental to our nation because without a clear set of rules and guidelines, there is no such thing as social order or justice, only an anarchical society without rules and enforceable penalties. It is true that a jury could acquit a defendant who was guilty based upon emotionally charged arguments, but that is not what I am arguing in this debate, and my opponent yet again makes assumptions about the content of my arguments. The point is: juries can rule guilty or not guilty in the courtroom when presented with emotionally charged arguments, they are free to do so. But to let emotions play a part in dictating how our government enforces its laws and maintains a fair society is absurd. Essentially, bsh states in this contention that even if the juries do not want to nullify the law itself, they might acquit a defendant if they feel as if the circumstances are not fair on the defendant. This is completely true, but we are arguing about the role of emotion in nullification. If an argument on the defendant’s behalf can convince a jury that they do not want the defendant to be guilty, then they will probably be inclined to vote not guilty. JRNL is defined as [1]: “Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding. ” What bsh is arguing in this contention is contradictory to what JRNL actually is. We are trying to argue about whether or not a jury should nullify a law, not return a verdict of not guilty. There is a difference between the two “worlds” that my opponent describes. In mine, there is a stable society in which a government can enforce its laws throughout the nation and the public is free to challenge a law in court, petition democratically elected lawmakers, and start movements to reform/repeal laws if they feel that they are unjust. In my opponent’s world, there exists a society in which the need for laws is negated because the jury can remove the government’s ability to enforce them based upon perceptions of injustice or immorality. I ask the voters, whose world would you want to live in? Appeals I agree with mbsh on this contention but it does not contribute to any of our cases. Emotion Why am I supposed to prove that all emotionally based decision making is bad? I have only argued that emotions should not play a role in dictating how our government is able to enforce laws in society and maintain order. The point about the juror’s gut feeling or instincts is a bit weak. Are we really supposed to leave the decision of whether or not to damage the integrity of our codified set of laws up to a juror’s gut feeling or instincts? I sincerely hope not. The jury should not be the tool to bring about change in our government, and it is impossible for the jury to do so anyways. Emotions building up in the public about a specific unfair or unjust law will convince them that said law needs challenging in court or change by lawmakers. Whether or not to have social order should not be left up to jurors but to the public, and through their will, the government. [1] . http://bit.ly... 2. Integrity Alternatives Challenges to specific laws in the legal system may take time, but is one of the correct methods to repeal or amend a law. This method does not remove the government’s ability to enforce its laws within our nation, unlike JRNL. One example of challenging a law in court, and producing results, is the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges [2]. In this case, a widely contested issue, the right to same sex marriage, was brought to court and ruled upon. The general public was in a state of constant protest over this issue, and they utilized the proper mechanisms to get the law changed. This is a great example of the benefits of having these mechanisms set up, the public can challenge unjust applications of law by the government, and the results are real ones. Also, my opponent’s assertions that a legislator will just not want to change a law is absurd, given the fact that it is the people who elect the legislator and it is the people who will join together to fight against unjust laws. To say that JRNL is the only way to protect people from injustice is ignorant. Like I have said in previous rounds, laws widely perceived as unjust and unfair will be attacked in court or repealed/amended at the state/federal level. JRNL only achieves a case-by-case result of acquittal. My alternatives carry more weight than bsh’s because while my opponent may lead you to believe that JRNL is a key tool in the fight against government oppression, it does not produce real results and result in a beneficial change, only the methods I have outlined can. I cannot emphasize enough how laws have to be enforced by the government, or there is no need for laws in the first place. In fact, reform movements have proved to be one of the most useful methods of bringing about change. Without them, comprehensive [3] labor reform would not have been achieved, women's voting rights would not have been expanded, and civil rights would not have been as widely recognized. Guilty verdicts on laws that are perceived by the jury as unjust and immoral are unfavorable, but must occur if the government is to continue enforcing its laws and maintaining a set of laws in our society. Reform has to be achieved through the established means of challenging a law or repealing/amending through legislation or the social order which our society is built upon does not exist. Citizens can affect all of my avenues of change directly, and I see no reason why my opponent would assert otherwise. The people elect legislators, it is not a dictatorship or an oligarchy. The claim that the Founders supported JRNL, and so should we, is logically fallacious and I will explain more in the next contention. Rule of Law Bsh makes the assertion that the jury is upholding the law by nullifying it. This not the case. When committing JRNL, the jurors are not bound by some sense of principle but by perceptions of morality or injustice. To say that jurors are protecting the integrity of the law by nullifying it is contradictory because it, as I have said many times before, negates the purpose of having laws and rules in our society by removing the government’s ability to enforce them. The rule of law is very much so undermined because JRNL is negating its purpose, and that is the crux of my case. Next, bsh brings up a quote about the lack of voting rights for African Americans. This was a principle supported by the founders [4], as well as many other racist ones. My opponent never ceases to quote the founding fathers to try and use their judgement as justification for jury nullification. If their ideas on obvious social principles in modern times are completely ignorant and racist, how can we trust their opinion on JRNL? Nullification hundreds of years ago has little impact on the resolution. Reform movements and amendments on the legislative level were the major tools of change during this era, and it shows in our Constitution where reform movements and public outrage led to the abolishment of slavery and expanded voting rights. My opponent is making my argument for me; these established mechanisms of change produce more actual results in society than JRNL does. Uniqueness How can bsh say that the harms I have outlined are not unique to his advocacy, when I am arguing and have proven with logical reasoning that JRNL will directly negate the need for laws in the first place and will remove the government’s ability to enforce their own laws. Going back to the “worlds” contention, it seems like a society with clear rules and guidelines with room for improvement in the legislation sounds like a better world to live in. Founding Principles This whole contention is logically fallacious; it is a clear appeal to authority without giving any real justification as to why anyone should put their eggs in bsh’s basket. The Founding fathers supported principles such as slavery, unequal gender rights, and unequal racial rights. Looking back on the legacy of the Founders, we see these principles and how they applied them in our governing document. The Constitution has changed from the founder’s first writing many times, and I make the argument that so must their ideas. A clear appeal to authority without justification for his side: this argument is successfully rebutted. [2] . http://bit.ly... [3] . http://bit.ly... [4] . http://bit.ly... Conclusion Social order means having a fair society in which a government is able to enforce its laws and lock up offenders. This is immeasurably important to the citizens of the nation because without a specific set of laws, there cannot be order, and there cannot be a fair society. JRNL removes the ability of the government to enforce its laws, and is therefore detrimental to the integrity of the law. I have completely fulfilled my burden as Con in this debate, his harms outweigh mine, and some of his contentions were logically fallacious.