In the United states, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government.

"The emotions aren't always immediately subject to reason, but they are always immediately subject to action"- William James quotes (American Philosopher and Psychologist, leader of the philosophical movement of Pragmatism, 1842-1910) Since my opponent didn't, I would like to state the definitions for these terms: _ Jury Nullification: occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged(http://www.law.umkc.edu...) _justice: the quality of being just, impartial, or fair(http://www.merriam-webster.com...) REBUTTAL: Jury nullification is not nescessary to be the just check on the government. _While my opponent is giving out his/her informations which seem too conspicuous and appealing and almost so convincing, I was left not persuaded by my dear friend's opinions and perspective. While jury nullification does give out great outsets, gives the people of the world and the people of the United States the freedom of choice and the freedom of anticipation of the government's justice system, flaws are countless and require imperative attentions to this subject: a) Jury Selection: According to US laws, the jurors are chosen randomly by age, except some cases based on a person's background(their religion, physical disability, whether or not that person have any profession in the law enforcement...)(http://law.cornell.edu...), therefore it's hardly to think that the jury can actually become a trusted stronghold or defense of the court since the jury came from different sources, with people from different backgrounds and opinions. Jury nullification therefore is non-reliable and while my opponent is arguing the judge and the court can be bias, he/she forgot that the jury itself in its nature is also full with bias since lots of them know little about laws but act with emotions. b)Human emotions: Followed by the quote I presented above, most of our actions deprived from emotions, different people often react with different nature(some flee when scared, some fight...), the jury also controlled by emotions. Like my opponent said the value he/she is presenting in this debate is the value of morality, but my opponent had also left one factor deficient-the different values of morality. If you're a white man in the 20's to 50's in the South of the United States and you follow its tradition, you would have different moral value and believe you're superior than the colored people, or if you live in the Medieval time you would think that burning witches on stakes is right, so you see my point. The reason we have laws, as I agree with my opponent, is to correct and created a framework for society, to make an instruction for our society. Unfortunately since the jury can decides freely according to their opinions, the laws often can be broken easily. c)The jurors abuse and use their power in their own belief: There were cases back in the prior time of the civil right movement which I can't now presented but I believe we all should know. At those time, if you're a colored man, you would have know by yourself. Because of the jury's power which they can exercise, the jurors can reach the verdict due to their belief. I should remind yoou that lots of time, people like the KKK or any discriminate groups are dominant in the jury, in that case people the verdict is totally unjust. Also a great danger is also ignorance of some informations, like this case(http://www.foxnews.com...), because of the lack in informations, the jury reached the verdict of 25 years of prison for a man who grow marijuana for his patients. In cases like this, I don't see how the jury could work as a power to enact on a supposedly "unjust" court system. While arguing and critisize the justice system, my opponent maybe had forgotten, human are human, and in this case a normal individual in a room where the your word can decide a man's life, a person that may have no profession in law, a person that maybe driven mad by his belief and his opinion. Would you like to stand up there, my friends, to be judged and decided by those people? The answer should be answered by you.