The Instigator
lovedebate
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
RaeTulo
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

RESOLVED- IN THE UNITED STATES, JURY NULLIFICATION is a just check on the government

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
RaeTulo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,271 times Debate No: 11239
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

lovedebate

Con

I will allow the affirmative to post first, also note that this debate will be in public forum format, by request of the opponent, note that my sources will be posted in comments and that if there are any questions except, cross fire they should be posted in comments
RaeTulo

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate.
Please keep in mind, I have not written a case for this topic previously, and I have done little to no research on it.
I am a public forum debater, and this is not my topic. I'll use what I know.

I'll define a few terms, offer my opponent a burden, and continue by listing my affirming arguments.

Jury Nullification, as defined by the US Dictionary of Law is "A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. It espouses the concept that jurors should be the judges of both law and fact."

The burden for the con-side is not to prove that Jury Nullification has done more harm than good, but that, despite the amount of harm or good done, it is not justified.

I affirm the resolution that states Resolved: in the US, Jury Nullification is a just check on the government.

I'll start by saying that if the intentions of the suspect were good, that his actions were justified and nullification will reach a verdict with that in mind, and decide whether the law which the suspect has been accused of violating is applicable.
Nullification is justified if the suspect is set free when his original intentions were beneficial to the greater good.
Debate Round No. 1
lovedebate

Con

cross fire:
i am a lincolin douglas debater not pf, so we will see how this goes
note i have researched this topic but have not competed in person yet, i have neither of my cases with me while writing this whole case so this should be interesting.
you do agree that it is the jury that make the final decision , not the judge, correct?
if some one perposely committs a crime, they deserve to be punished, correct?
do the laws not define punishment and limits to the law itsself?
RaeTulo

Pro

"you do agree that it is the jury that make the final decision , not the judge, correct?"
-I think the judge has some influence on what the jury should decide, but that in the end, yes the jury should make the final decision,

"if some one perposely committs a crime, they deserve to be punished, correct?"
-not necessarily. Take mercy killing for example. A man, a wife. The man's wife is suffering from severe clinical depression. No job, lack of friends, and her husband has a hard time keeping her emotionally satisfied. Let's say his wife says she will commit suicide. If she is suffering horribly day by day, is it in her interest if he poisons her drink, and she drinks it? This man doesn't want to see his wife live a horrible life, and so he mercifully killed her to stop her suffering. Or, if there is a known sex offender on a neighborhood street where many students live, if a man on this street kills the repeat sex offender in order to protect these children, isn't he doing what is in the best interest for the greater good? If his intentions were beneficial to the greatest good, he should not be punished.

"do the laws not define punishment and limits to the law itsself?"
-Maybe i'm not understanding this as you meant it, but, as I said before, the jury is supposed to come up with the final verdict based on evidence and conscience. If a man murders another, and the law says he should be sentenced to the death penalty, if the jury decides this is unapplicable, then that's how the verdict will be chosen. So, yes, the laws define punishments and limits, but the final decision should come from the jury.
Debate Round No. 2
lovedebate

Con

i will first present negative constructive and then attack my opponents case.
resolved:the principle of jury nullification is a just check on the government
value premise:justice
criteria: it is the jurys responsibility of the jury to declare someone who has been proven to be guilty to be so .
contention 1: it is the jurys responsibility to declare someone who has been proven guilty to be so and not to is a danger to society. okay, take the scenario of a murder case, the defendant killed someone he has been proven guilty, there has been a weapon found with finger prints and the blood of the victim on it. this persons case is nullified, he goes home and is okay for a little while but then he kills again are you going to have his case nullified again and again, because the resolution states no limit to the times a case can be nullified.
think for a moment about the victims family, maybe this person had a wife and kids, a family, maybe he had a little boy or girl who will have to grow up with out a father because his dad was killed, noone to play baseball with or to attend school plays, but not only did the defendant kill this man but he killed again , it is a danger to society for jury nullification to be allowed,point blank.
i guess what i am trying to say is that it is a just check on the people for jury nullification to be eradicated
and before i attack i pose a question, not to be answered but to be contemplated:
what can jury nullification achieve besides damage, besides more harm, to make things worse then they already were.
attack:
i agree, jurrors should judge, the law as well as the facts,
if the facts say that someone is guilty of a crime and the law says that there is a set punishment for this crime then this person is to be declared guilty and sentenced to serve his or her punishment.
the "burden" for the aff side is that the person arguing it has to prove that jury nullification is or in past situations has been a good thing, and there for the con side has to disprove this .
i dont understand your reasoning, when someone committs a crime then they know that there are consequences for that crime so when they committ a crime they pay no head that there will be punishment , there for people who do committ crime do deserve the set consequences for that crime.Nullification is justified if the suspect is set free when his original intentions were beneficial to the greater good" intent can change as i tried to present in the scenario above.
if the law has been broken then consequences are applicable and should be administered.
"
RaeTulo

Pro

I will not continue this debate if it is set up in Lincoln Douglas format.
I do not know how to weigh a Value or Criteria in a round, and therefore I am disadvantaged.
My opponent agreed to debate this in PF format, and then has gone against that.
I am forfeiting the round.

My opponent wins by default.
Debate Round No. 3
lovedebate

Con

sorry, my bad, i guess i kind of just switched to ld format, if you wish you can disregard those terms without risk of attack and i will forfeit this round as well. sorry.
RaeTulo

Pro

I'll rebut my opponents case and then rebuild my own case.

I'd like to start out by clarifying one thing.
Jury Nullification, as defined by the US Dictionary of Law is "A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. It espouses the concept that jurors should be the judges of both law and fact."

My opponent has argued against my case, saying that the accused should not be let off the hook, and she's assuming that jury nullification always allows this.
However, according to my definition of Jury Nullification, the jury reaches a verdict, taking the accusation, the judge's order, and the facts into consideration. Jury nullification doesn't neccessarily mean that the jury will drop charges on a murderer. Like I said, the jury takes every aspect of the situation into consideration, to reach a verdict they think is fair. If they think the accused man deserves to be put in jail, that's the verdict they will reach.
If they think the accused man is not deserving of punishment, they will take the charges off.

My opponent has argued that "this persons case is nullified, he goes home and is okay for a little while but then he kills again are you going to have his case nullified again and again, because the resolution states no limit to the times a case can be nullified."
If we look back to my definition again, we'll see that the jury bases their verdict off of facts and conscience. If they feel the accused is, in fact, deserving of punishment, then the suspect will be punished accordingly, and so this is not neccessarily harmful.

"if the facts say that someone is guilty of a crime and the law says that there is a set punishment for this crime then this person is to be declared guilty and sentenced to serve his or her punishment."
Another example of something the jury takes into consideration to make their final decision. If there is a set punishment that is unapplicable to the situation, then the jury may decide to drop charges.
HOWEVER if the set punishment fits the crime and the intention of the criminal, then the jury will reach an opposite verdict, and the suspect will be punished.

Please keep my definition of jury nullification in mind as you read each side's arguments. :) Thanks!
Debate Round No. 4
lovedebate

Con

i believe that this is my final rebuttal, so i will present conclusion and voter issues if the opponent wants to do the same.
i have infact through out this whole case been trying to say that the jury should judge the law as well as the facts
when a case is nullified all cahrges are dropped, like aquit or cleared..you cant nullify someone and still punish them.....besides that goes against your whole argument.
"this is not neccessarily harmful."
oh no not harmful when people are killed

i have only one voter issue and that is that my opponent hasnt proven jury nullification to be a good thing.
i feel as though i have proven jury nullification to be a harm to society and to be unjust so i ask everyone to vote negated, thank you
RaeTulo

Pro

I agree with my opponents observation that says that the jury should judge the law and the facts.
However, according to the definition I have provided from the U.S. Dictionary of Law, a jury who nullifies, takes into consideration the judge's comments, the crime commited, the set punishment for the crime, and the intention of the crime.
The law. The facts.
Now, my definition says they take this into consideration to reach their final verdict. The final verdict will NOT always be "charges dropped"
According to Jurisdictionary: "if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute."
If they drop charges the first time, if the crime is continually committed, the jury bases their verdicts off of the repeated attempts to prosecute, and the suspect WILL be punished.
So!! As I've said before. NO it's not very harmful if the jury bases their verdict off of their moral obligations and beliefs, as well as the law and facts, then it's likely they'll come to a reasonable verdict.

Let me remind you, the resolution doesn't ask me to prove that nullification is GOOD, but instead, to prove that it is justified, which I have proven it to be.
So vote pro!
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
*Despises the Idea of a Criterion*
Values: Yes
Criterion: NO.

But yeah CON gave a thesis not a criterion.

A criterion is essentially a weighing mechanism with an internal brightline for achieving the value. In other words, If the Value is justice then the criterion narrows down arguments so we know what how we can find justice and how to determine what is more just that something else.
Posted by Askio 7 years ago
Askio
Some general ideas for you guys.
One, don't worry, it's nice to see that at least the V/C structure is alive and well. My high school invented Lincoln Douglas, and it's annoying seeing policy invade the event. Just think of this as a bashing of contention and observations/analysis.
1st: Con Just a heads up. The value of justice is appropriate. But that criteria is too long, and potentially abusive. 1) Because the affirmative can never link into that structure, essentially preventing a debate of criteria, so you would have to default to the pro's. 2) It's limiting what you can do, change that. Criteria are supposed to narrow down things, but not that much.

That little bit out of the way. To both of you.
Your interpretation is reliant on intentions of the individual. One, good intentions of a criminal are impossible to prove. You're relying on an abstract concept that is always abused in the legal system by many lawyers to defend the worst people.
On the flip side, looking at the idea that a criminal is guilty should be found guilty is purely subjective. What is guilty? Why are they guilty? What is the application of justice that is appropriate? You both fall into a mindset where your looking at the bark of the tress, not the big picture.
There is an essay on the conceptions of justice, and the application of justice that is online. The author was anonymous, but it basically blew both your frameworks out of the water in that it stated (and this is a dumb down summary) essentially that. Both means and ends must be evaluated. Even if one may be weighed more than the other, both are equally important. And as for the argument of intentions, it outlines how intentions can never be truly known by anyone other than the actor. People may only perceive the outside representation and claim of intention. Therefore, making basing a decision over what someone "could have thought" is irrational and irresponsible, as the assumed perception is often different from reality
Posted by fireant1995 7 years ago
fireant1995
i concur
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
seconded nails.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
CON has absolutely no idea what a criterion is.
Posted by lovedebate 7 years ago
lovedebate
no no it was my fault sorry, it is just natural for me to do ld,just disregard those
Posted by RaeTulo 7 years ago
RaeTulo
Okay. :) Thank you very much.
I'm sorry about that.
Posted by lovedebate 7 years ago
lovedebate
my bad sorry, i am a lincolin douglas varsity debater, it is hard for me to get into other formats, i sort of automatically switch to licnolin douglas. disregard those points if you wish i will not attack you for it.
Posted by RaeTulo 7 years ago
RaeTulo
I cannot further debate this if we switch to LD format.
I don't know how to weigh a value and criteria/on in a round, and that would unfairly disadvantage me.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by DavidSSabb94 7 years ago
DavidSSabb94
lovedebateRaeTuloTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by stephenm 7 years ago
stephenm
lovedebateRaeTuloTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
lovedebateRaeTuloTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by belle 7 years ago
belle
lovedebateRaeTuloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04