Discrimination is unjust

This is my last chance to speak, so a million kisses to my opponent. My opponent claims that I believe the trial-by-jury system is corrupt. This is true iff what my opponent is correct in believing that discrimination on the part of jurors deprives the accused of his or her right to a free trial. However, since discriminatory dispositions can either be based in ignorance (as opposed to malice prejudice) there is no reason, based on what my opponent has said, to conclude that jury discrimination does deprive the accused of a free trial. Nevertheless, all of this presupposes that there is a right to a free trial in the first place. My opponent correctly points out that the government guarantees every person has the right to a free trial. But this, in turn, presupposes that a government can actually give a free trial in the first place. But if what my opponent has said is true (that in many circumstances, discriminatory dispositions make free trials impossible), then the government is guaranteeing something it cannot give. The assumption here is that the government is an all-powerful entity that can produce anything. Historically, governments have resorted to promises they could not keep. If discrimination makes a free trial impossible, the government might as well promise its citizens streets paved with gold tomorrow. My opponent also correctly points out the resolution never specifies where the rights come from. However, the jury does not guarantee the right to a free trial, not even "indirectly". The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution was written by a government and entrusted the justice system with its enforcement. It is a government-guaranteed right to citizens. Juries, as I have said, are simply instruments whose members are not a part of the government. Still, rights always come from someone, whether we're talking about a government (or civil right) or an economic right (e.g. to a job, place to live) based on a contract. My opponent also believes that if discrimination did not exist, everyone would be guaranteed the right to a fair trial. However, this is a misunderstanding of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, which clarifies four conditions that make up a "fair trial": (a) an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed; (b) to be confronted with the witnesses against him; (c) to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and (d) to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense[1]. While having an impartial jury (as guaranteed by the justice system) is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition for what the government would recognize as a fair trial proper. Condition (a) specifies that the jury is "of the State", which means primarily that the State is responsible for the impartial jury, just as the State is responsible for ensuring conditions (b), (c), and (d) are met. It is simply false to say that the State is responsible for every aspect of the trial, except for the jury being impartial. It makes no sense to say that the accused is guaranteed to something the State cannot give, namely, a fair trial. Moreover, as I said, if my opponent wants to live in a perfect world where jurors have no biases, then I shall not stand in his way. My opponent's arguments find no fault with the government and the justice system. This is because my argument makes it very clear: for any given right, there must be some object or action to which the subject (in this case, the accused) is made entitled to by that right. If a government is unable to secure a free trial, the accused is not entitled to one. Although we may not like this fact, that is the consequence of trusting government with carrying out justice. The same reasoning applies in all other circumstances. Vote CON. --------------- [1] = http://www.law.cornell.edu...