On balance, jury nullification in the United States is just

Justice and Nullification It's still unclear what form of justice nullification upholds. Pro employs appeals to emotion, cases that tug at your heartstrings, making you want to protect these poor, defenseless people from an overbearing government. But it's not enough to argue that some sentences are too long without explaining why dismissing them completely, as nullification necessarily does, is just. Presenting cases of missed opportunity doesn't showcase any benefits from nullification's actual use, much less how it is just. And neither does showing that it is more rapid than its alternatives, as producing outcomes faster doesn't make them just, nor does it mean that faster results are necessarily better. Pro does provide the Bay area example of how nullification effectively stopped prosecutions in that area. Turn this against him. It shows how thieves and other non-violent criminals were released without penalties despite clear guilt. Like those jurors, Pro's supporting a system where crimes like theft are practically ignored, removing the deterrent effect and no justice for the wronged. It's also a clear example of circumventing the majority opinion in an effort to protect people from what is only a subjectively harmful law, and it likely masked the issue, preventing actual discussion of the law and potentially contributing to the delay in action. The "jury of peers" argument only reveals an aspect of why juries are formed. That doesn't make it their duty to be subjective. Pro drops that all of his examples of things juries should take into account are covered by objective evaluation. Even if you buy that having jurors who understand the context of crimes is a duty, that doesn't require nullification or its inherent subjectivity. Any potential benefit is overwhelmed by the basic contradiction in his case: he's upset that a few politicians have so much control over a larger population, yet he's encouraging even fewer jurors to have tremendous control over a larger population. He drops that he's exacerbating the problem in an attempt to solve for it. A. Nullification as a Means 1. Justicia Pro has continued to ignore my overview on justice, only asserting that I haven't supported my views. He drops my evaluation of Justicia and offers no comparable means for assessing what is just. Remember, this statue adorns courthouses around the world. She is the symbol for what is just. And, most importantly, she represents objective enforcement for the sake of an ordered society. I recognize that subjectivity will exist regardless, but just because we cannot eliminate subjectivity from the equation doesn't mean we should be to endorsing it. 2. Oath and Instructions Pro"s only response to my point that these specify the duties of a jury is to say that the oath is coerced and vague. The instructions, which Pro dropped, are not the slightest bit vague: "[jurors] must not substitute or follow their own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be", nor are they coercive. As for the oath, it is at least clear in one part: that evaluating the evidence is required. Jury nullification obviates that requirement. If you read the article, Pro's example of coercion is actually juror trying to get out of jury duty. But coercion doesn't change the fact that other people in those courtrooms have an expectation that jurors would be unjustly ignoring via nullification. My euthanasia link proves, and Pro concedes, that knowing nullification is an option dramatically alters jurors' views of many cases. Since this knowledge isn't improving the ability of jurors to understand the evidence, these changes result subjective views in lieu of evidence. Everyone in the courtroom functions under the assumption that they can trust the jurors to come evidence-based decisions. Nullification betrays that trust. At worst, the oath was coerced, but breaking that oath only adds to the injustice. B. Nullification's Results 1. Violent Criminals Pro can't pick and choose the ways that his support for nullification play out. All 12 jurors agreeing to nullify a trial is not the sole result of that support " Pro can't pretend that his support doesn't have effects that go beyond classical nullification. Hung juries aren't non-topical when attempts to nullify are the reason they happen. I've shown that there are at least 330,000 people who are more than willing to nullify violent crimes. Pro dropped my example of the SCM and their desire to nullify any trial for such a crime. Any one of these people is likely to at least try for it, and they'll have several chances through jury duty. Pro's attempts to exclude these instances is a kind of tunnel vision that ignores the harms individuals can wreak using the same view Pro professes: the need to protect those who would be unjustly punished. Whether there's 1 or 12, these people are actively trying to send violent and dangerous individuals back into the general public. Worse yet, nullifying makes an appropriate sentence for any case, whether it's theft or rape, impossible, as double jeopardy precludes re-trial. At least imprisonment provides opportunities for appeal. 2. Racial Prejudice Nullification builds racial divides. Pro sources these divides at convictions, but they"re a symptom of entrenched racial prejudice. Butler's ideas seek to use the jury system to discriminate based on skin color in an attempt to reduce racial prejudice, but this perpetuates injustice by entrenching yet another form of racism. My examples of Ramirez and King are emblematic of this. The perception that these trials were nullified by jurors with emotional attachments to the defendants led to further feelings of disenfranchisement. Pro never attacks the link between that perception and the LA riots, and thus fails to address their significant and deadly impact. Alternatives I argued that nullification, as a means, is unjust. Pro's never contested this, justifying nullification solely by the ends it achieves. It doesn't have to be ideal, but this means that he has to both win that its ends are just and that the justice of those outcomes outweighs nullification's inherent injustice. Note that he never argues that either of my alternatives are inherently unjust, so even if they're less effective, they automatically have a leg up on nullification. I presented two alternatives. Note that neither is "twiddling our thumbs". One is the democratic system. Protest, vote, visit your representatives. Pro attacks its solvency, but a) he contradicts this by advocating for its continued use, which means it is at least somewhat effective, and b) preventing further corruption, which Pro never challenges, shows that it is effective against corruption. He states that they aren't mutually exclusive, but can't both argue that the "corporate plutocracy" is entrenched and pretend that that view has absolutely no effect on how individuals perceive their votes. This is important because all of the harms resulting from these politicians get worse as the public becomes more apathetic about the democratic process. If the system is terrible now, it gets worse under Pro's case. The second is judicial reform. This focuses on trained, accountable judges, who are clearly more trustworthy than untrained, unaccountable jurors. Pro dropped my argument that juries are almost never involved in sentencing. This is crucial. Look back to his view on the purpose of a jury: to provide a "fair trial and sentence". The most he can accomplish is a fair trial, but he utterly fails to show that he can provide any sort of fair sentencing, whereas judicial reform addresses both. Nullification precludes this reform by masking the need for improvements to the sentencing process, as it avoids sentencing completely. My links show that judicial reform is aimed at reducing minimum sentences, which solves for many of Pro's concerns. The push for reform has recently encompassed both the executive and legislative branches of government, and both political parties. This near universal support is more than just posturing. Evidence and Fairness Pro has an odd concept of what evidence is. He views emotional response, despite being entirely personal and unverifiable, as evidence. He views the personal biases you bring into a trial against a given law as evidence, despite relying on highly variant political views separate from the trial. But evidence is fact-based.[1] It's proof, produced in a trial. Evidence doesn't exclude discretion, nor does it incur "blind legalism". It encourages the weighing of all factual information. Like Pro said, jurors"should be required to evaluate the evidence," and yet he's giving them every reason to ignore it. But why not have a trial where the outcome is decided based entirely on the personal experience and feelings of 12 strangers? Because of fairness. The very fairness Pro touts as the sole basis for jurors acting justly. Fairness is the ability of every member of a courtroom to understand the rules and who is bound by them. Fairness is equal treatment regardless of race. But we're not just concerned about fairness within the courtroom. Fairness is leaving big legal decisions in the hands of a majority of voters and their elected representatives. Fairness is ensuring that guilty and dangerous individuals are tried and punished. I made clear through my burdens analysis, which Pro conceded, how this debate should be evaluated. It's not about the right to nullify, it's about who outweighs on the impacts of the usage of nullification. In terms of broad effect, likelihood, and severity, my impacts are stronger. All Pro provides is examples of nullification's disuse, a view that shifting power from one minority to a smaller one is somehow just, and a doomsday fantasy scenario where prosecutors are trying to send us all to jail. Support objectivity, evidence, and fairness within and without the courtroom. 1. http://bit.ly...