Stock AC
Definitions:
Perceive (Merriam-Webster) - to attain awareness or understanding of, to
regard as being such <perceived threats>, to become aware of through the
senses;
Injustice (Merriam-Webster) - absence of justice, violation of right or of the
rights of another, and/or an unjust act
Rawls 2001 (John [Ph.D., Harvard Professor] Justice as Fairness, 2 Society as a
Fair System of Cooperation Harvard University Press. 2001, page 5.
As I said above, [a] practicable aim of justice as fairness is to provide an acceptable
philosophical and moral basis for democratic institutions and thus to address the
question of how the claims of liberty and equality are to be understood. To this end
we look to the public political culture of a democratic society, and to the traditions
of interpretation of its constitution and basic laws, for certain familiar ideas that can
be worked up into a conception of political justice. It is assumed that citizens in a
democratic society have at least an implicit understanding of these idea as shown in
everyday political discussion, in debates about the meaning and ground of
constitutional rights and liberties, and the like.
It is because justice cannot exist without fairness that I affirm the resolution.
I value justice
Justice must be based on the idea that the most reasonable view of justice would be
the object of mutual agreement by persons under fair conditions. A fair condition
would mean that we must look to neutrality of being before deciding what is good
for society.
The Original Position is based on the idea that if all men were equal and free,
there would be a consensus of what is going to consider just. For example, imagine
that an equal group of citizens sat around a table to discuss how they wanted the
law applied in the criminal justice system. This meeting would take place before the
question of a verdict, evidence provided, or jury selection. What would be the
consensus on how to run a jury trial? The answer to this question will decide the
debate. The affirmative will show that the benefits of jury nullification are the
natural desires of democratic people, and therefore just.
The affirmative will argue that jury nullification provides a criminal justice system
that allows for perceived injustices to be addressed by a democratic process.
Contention 1: Juries get a
chance to provide justice when
the court is challenging justice
Jury nullification allows juries to use the process of democracy
to avoid despotic applications of the law. Judicial activism is a
major concern in the US court system today. Jury nullification
places the power to interpret the laws back in to the hands of
the citizens.
Rubenstein 2006
(Arie [J.D., Columbia Law School] Verdicts of Conscience: Nullification and the Modern Jury Trial Columbia Law
Review. Vol. 106, Issue 4, pages 959-993.
In its recent jury trial cases, the Court has shown that decisions relating to the rights
inhering in the jury trial should be based upon a consideration of the functions of
the jury in contemporary society and on how best to express the principles that
underlie the constitutional guarantee of a jury trial. But as discussed above, the lower courts
continue to use a purely formalist approach to determine the extent to which jury
nullification should be permitted. The sentencing cases demonstrate that the
principles underlying the right to a jury trial, namely prevention of despotic
application of law and the introduction of democratic elements into the justice
system, must be protected against encroachment. Jury nullification is ideally suited
to further these ends; indeed, without nullification, the jury is largely powerless
against despotic law, and its democratic value is merely symbolic. Held against the
standard expressed in these cases, jury nullification is a viable element of the
modern criminal trial.
The demand for justice and fairness in our criminal justice
system requires the option of jury nullification. Referring to
the original position, citizens in a just democracy advocate for
the option that allows a jury of their peers to apply the law as
it was intended and not as it is always written. Juries are free
to prevent the law from being applied in cases were injustices
are perceived.
Contention 2: Jury Nullification
promotes fairness by
establishing a strong
democracy established through
the framework of the original
position
A. Jury Nullification promotes democracy not anarchy
The use of jury nullification to supersede the court is no
different than the government deciding which cases it will
send to trial. This is done on a daily basis in this country and
is supported by the law of common sense. Americans do not
consider it anarchy when a police officer uses his or her
judgment in applying the law.
McKnight-1 2013
(Aaron, [J.D.] Jury Nullification as a Tool to Balance the Demands of Law and Justice, BYU Law Review. Vol. 2013,
Issue 4, Article 9.
Like the discretionary decisions of police officers and prosecutors, jury nullification is
simply an exercise of the jurys discretion regarding whether criminal punishment is
appropriate in a given case. Just as police and prosecutors take into consideration
factors such as whether the defendants behavior was merely a technical violation
or whether other circumstances not formally recognized by the law justified or
excused a defendants actions, so serves jury nullification to weed out inappropriate
prosecutions where police and prosecutors failed to do so. This view of jury
nullification substantially rebuts criticism that nullification violates the rule of law
because this view reveals that discretionary decisions to not enforce a law are not
as large a problem as critics argue; such discretion is exercised every day in police
and prosecutors offices, so it seems irrational to claim that such discretion
exercised on occasion by a jury would lead to anarchy and the end of the rule of law.
B. Jury Nullification allows for fairness based on the idea of
common sense
McKnight-2 2013
(Aaron, [J.D.] Jury Nullification as a Tool to Balance the Demands of Law and Justice, BYU Law Review. Vol.
2013, Issue 4, Article 9.
critics argue that jury nullification is a poor exercise of discretion because
juries are not trained in the law and because they do not have the experience that
police and prosecutor have in screening cases. However, juries are useful as an
Countering,
additional level of discretionary review exactly because they are not trained in the
law: they are looking at the case from a common sense point of view. Such a
common sense point of view is necessary to properly balance the rule of law with
the fair application of justiceor an application of the law in accordance with the
spirit of the lawbecause a purely legal approach, such as that taken by lawyers
and judges, can often result in harsh results.
Justice, through the perspective of original position, promotes
every opportunity to provide fairness. It is reasonable to
expect a jury of our peers to apply the law as the accused and
the community would expect it to be applied.
C. Jury Nullification provides an additional system of checks
and balances allowing citizens to prevent injustice within
the court system
In many jurisdictions in the United States criminal prosecutors and trial court judges
are elected positions making those who operate the criminal justice system
politicians. It is commonly accepted that a politicians desire to be reelected leads
he or she to cater to special interest groups or campaign donors. John Oliver
recently discussed the many faults within this system when he pointed to the fact
that judges tend to pass harsher sentences to criminals in election years,
overlooking fairness in an effort to appear as if they are tough on crime.
The Fully Informed Jury Association has made it its goal to make every potential jury
aware of their rights and abilities to use jury nullification to provide an additional
level of checks and balances. The primary function of the independent juror is not,
as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking
various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power
by government. The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This
means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if
government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Jurors can say
no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.
Extensions
Citizens overlook personal bias if they believe the system is
fair
Doherty, 2011
(David, Professor of Political Science, Loyola University, When Do the Ends Justify the Means? Evaluating Procedural
Fairness, Political Behavior, Volume 34, Issue 2, Pages 301-323)
, it is clear that people are concerned about principles of justice, and
that they value representative procedures and systems that treat people
fairly and equitably. When rules are broken, people view procedures as unfair. People care so much about
the character of procedures that in evaluating their experiences with the
courts and police, their views about how they were treated through the
process matter more than what outcome they received. If people do care
deeply about fair treatment, then it suggests that they will assess the
fairness of political processes in an accurate and unbiased way. Protective of
principles of justice, they will put aside their biases to objectively evaluate
procedural fairness based on the specific details of how a policy was
produced. Evidence suggests that peoples views of how government should
operate can prevail over partisan concerns of winning or losing in politics.
On one hand
Jury Nullification should be used to protect the rights of LGBTQ defendants
Leavitt, 2012
(Adrien, J.D./Public Defender, Queering Jury Nullification: Using Jury Nullification as a Tool to Fight Against the
Criminalization of Queer and Transgender People, Seattle Journal for Social Justice, Volume 10, Issue 2, Article 2)
Like black jury nullification, queer jury nullification is morally justifiable due
to the continuing and systematic failure of the democratic system in the
United States to protect queer people, typified by the criminalization of
queer identities. Queer people and their sympathizers should not be morally
obligated to enforce a system that perpetrates violence on them and
members of their community. While the ideal of the rule of law suggests
neutral interpretation and application, in reality this is impossible to achieve.
As a result, the law cannot lead to justice in every case, making queer jury
nullification appropriate to ameliorate the deeply held stereotypes and
assumptions made about those who refuse to subscribe to heteronormative
sexualities and gender identities. Additionally, queer peoples
underrepresentation as legal decision makers had the result of creating a
legal system reflecting norms that were not assented to by queers and other
political minorities. As in the Magna Carta era, without another method of
changing these unjust laws, jury nullification is the appropriate avenue.
Finally, regardless of the facts of the case or the law at issue, queer jury
nullification is morally justified simply to avoid sending queer people into
inherently violent prisons where they are likely to be sexually and physically
abused, subjected to verbal harassment and degradation, and forced to
endure the physiological punishment of nearly constant segregated isolation.
The founding fathers intended juries to judge the law through
their own conscious
Adams, 1795
(John, President of the United States, Legal Papers of John Adams Volume 1, Harvard University Press, 1965,
Page230)
Now should the Melancholy Case arise, that the Judges should give their
Opinions to the Jury, against one of [the] fundamental Principles, is a Juror
obligated to give his verdict generally according to this Direction or even to
find the fact specially and submit the Law to the Court? Every Man of any
feeling or Conscience will answer, no. It is not only his right but his Duty in
that Case to find the Verdict according to his own best Understanding,
Judgment and Conscience, tho in direct opposition to the Direction of the
Court.
Jury nullification does not increase the unpredictable nature of
criminal trials or lead to anarchy
Huemer, 2012
(Michael, Political Philosopher, The Duty to Disregard the Law, University of Colorado - Boulder, Lecture given
August 28, 2012)
One reason is that the justice system is rife with both unpredictability and
subjective judgment, quite apart from jury nullification. The majority of
crimes are never solved by the police, so one who violates the law cannot
know whether he will ever be caught. Police are allowed discretion in
deciding whether to make an arrest, and prosecutors are allowed discretion
in deciding to whether to charge suspects, even when there is sufficient
evidence to support a charge. When suspects are prosecuted, different juries
may make different judgments about the factual evidence, rendering jury
trial outcomes unpredictable even without nullification. No one claims that
any of these phenomena render our system anarchic or lawless. The
marginal increase in unpredictability due to a given jurys decision to nullify
is negligible and hardly likely to push society over the threshold into anarchy.
Juries do not overuse jury nullification or use it inappropriately
Butler, 2010
(Paul, Author, Lets Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice, Excerpts from book, The New Press)
There are rarely nullifications in crimes with victims; jurors voted not guilty in
those cases because they had reasonable doubt about the governments
evidence, often because they didnt believe the police. This tendency among
jury nullification critics to conflate reasonable doubt acquittals with nullification
confuses the issue. It also sets juries against an impossible standard of
perfection that we dont expect from any other players in the criminal justice
system.
Are juries perfect? Of course not. But neither are the police officers who have
discretion to make arrests. And neither are the prosecutors who, according to
Butler, have more power than judges, because they have discretion over
whether to charge a suspect, and for what offense. Moreover, prosecutors
tend to throw the book at defendants, to compel them to plead guilty in return
for less harsh sentences.
Juries are no more racists than the rest of the criminal justice
system
Conrad, 2014
(Clay, J.D., Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine, Cato Institute Press, Book)
It is unrealistic to claim that racist juries have never been seated, or to deny
the risk of a jury returning a racist verdict in occasional cases. Racist verdicts
(such as the verdict in the Emmett Till case) have occurred, and will in all
likelihood occur in the future, whether by bench or jury. However, statistics
and history fail to substantiate claims of the widespread use of racist jury
nullification in cases involving racial violence. Nor do they show the jury as
being more racist than other decision makers in the criminal justice system
prosecutors, judges, police, attorneys. Instances of unalloyed racist
nullification are extremely rare, and even these low numbers can be further
reduced without affecting the jurys power to nullify in an appropriate case.
