The Instigator
brittney11
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kckettler
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Should Jury Nullification be Abolished?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
kckettler
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,422 times Debate No: 25792
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

brittney11

Con

This debate will pertain to the idea of abolishing jury nullification. I will argue the necessity for jury nullification in U.S. courts.
kckettler

Pro

I accept your challenge! Let's make it a good one.
Debate Round No. 1
brittney11

Con

brittney11 forfeited this round.
kckettler

Pro

As my opponent forfeited the first round, I really hope my he is doing all right. Because it seems as if he won't be debating I will be very brief compared to my usual arguments.


Jury nullification
is a constitutional doctrine which allows juries to acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law.[1]

1. Jury nullification can act as judicial activism. But instead of acting through legislative practices or abiding by statutory law, it seeks to avoid dealing within the law entirely. When a group of people nullify the verdict, they nullify the law of the land.

2. In court case U.S. v. Thomas[2], "Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." That ruling has not been contested by the Supreme Court. In effect, the judicial system already sees jury nullification as a threat to an effective judiciary and as a threat to the democratic process.

3. Jury nullification gives an unfair advantage to the defendant. When prosecuting a possible criminal, there is no equivalent for the prosecution to seek. By definition, it allows the guilty to go free.


[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]U.S. v. Thomas No. 95-1337 (2nd Cir. 5-20-97).
Debate Round No. 2
brittney11

Con

brittney11 forfeited this round.
kckettler

Pro

Before this I didnt know what Jury Nullification was, so I thank my opponent for that. Its unfortunate he was not able to debate here, and I wish him all the best. Otherwise, please vote pro. I would really prefer not to tie here.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
brittney11kckettlerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: By no means can this contest end in a draw.