Jury Nullification
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
--Topic--
In the United States criminal justice system, jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice
--Definitions--
Jury Nullification: the act of a jury returning a verdict of "not guilty" despite believing that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. The jury, by effect or choice, nullifies a law that it views as immoral, unjust, or unconstitutional.
--Rules--
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss
--Structure--
R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary
- The mootness cuts both ways. If juries are going to acquit sympathetic defendants, then many of Con's arguments against jury nullification, if not all his arguments, evaporate as non-unique. If Con is embracing this fact, as it seems he is, than his objections to jury nullification are moot, and we should vote Pro because there is no reason not to. Remember, it is Con's burden to disprove the resolution, and he cannot do that without unique arguments against jury nullification. Since jury nullification is the status quo, we default back to that and vote Pro.
- Jury nullification retains unique benefits even if juries may acquit sympathetic defendants in either world. Not all victims of unjust laws may be sympathetic, and thus juries may not manufacture doubt to acquit them. In a world with jury nullification, the juries can abstract away from the unsympathetic nature of the defendant to instead consider the merits of the law itself, which they of course can nullify even if the defendant is not a sympathetic character.
- We should not prefer a world in which juries manufacture doubt, because (a) that undermines the concept of reasonable doubt and (b) it requires jurors to be dishonest. Firstly, in a world where jury nullification is prohibited, acquittals will naturally be interpreted as coming from reasonable doubt. But in cases where juries have to manufacture such doubt in cases where there clearly isn't any, those acquittals will create precedent that lowers the bar for what counts as reasonable doubt. In other words, cases that acquit without reasonable doubt in Con's world will be seen as having reasonable doubt, leading to a corruption of the standard of reasonable doubt. Secondly, jurors who manufacture doubt are essentially lying to themselves and to others when they claim that reasonable doubt exists. If we can solve the problem of unjust laws and unjust applications of law without requiring juries to engage in mental contortions to do so, we ought to prefer that solution (jury nullification) to the contortions. This is self-evident.
(1) Efficacy
(2) On petitioning
(b) It takes a long time
Again, Pro did not respond to the nuance of this analysis, because what I really said was that in a world without jury nullification, petitions are naturally going to be of a better quality. What does this mean? This means that in a world without jury nullification, inherently good petitions will rise over the din of the trolls, and these are likely to be the petitions that will be approved of most by the people, and therefore will be responded to by the government quickly. Pro concedes this in the lack of response to my syllogism. And by responding quickly, obviously the government will have to take action quickly, because the more the government delays, the more the government loses popularity with the people. In theory, pro hasn’t responded to this argument. The Trump administration obviously cannot be used as a response, because it is quickly turning out to be quite a different presidency than most, to put it lightly. It’s unfair for Pro to his Trump as an example. In terms of Obama, the administration dd in fact respond and implement a few petitions, most of the rest of them were trolls.
(c) Drops
Substantive Arguments:
Pro ultimately never ended up responding to wither one of my contentions, that victims deserve retribution, and that offenders deserve retribution. Both of these stand as unrebutted. But what did Pro say? Pro said that sometimes, victims do not deserve punishment. To this, I told you many things. I told you that anyone who has done something wrong has to face punishment for their actions. I also told you in the previous round that I can support proportional punishment. No response to this whatsoever. In Pro’s world, that man who stole 120$ will be allowed to walk free, time and time again, never being told what he did was wrong. And, in Pro’s world, there are bound to be many people like that man who can go on stealing small amounts over and over again, while not being punished for it, because let’s face it. The man who stole 120$ stole thrice. He was given two warnings, yet he chose to continue to steal. There will definitely be a huge influx of these cases on Pro’s side, because people are never told what is right and what is wrong. That was the fundamental principle that Pro had to defend, but never did. As for the three attacks that Pro put forth, I’ve already addressed the first two elsewhere in my case. I already stressed, throughout the third round, that unjustly convicted people can still be acquitted on my side. Pro simply ignores my responses and calls these attacks unrebutted. In response to Pro’s third attack, obviously this argument talks about crimes which do have victims. I thought that didn’t need clarification, but apparently Pro misunderstands my arguments to such an extent that every single word needs to be spelled out for him.
Pro introduced three more points of contention, namely, (a) forgiveness is an essential element of protecting victims of injustice, (b) forgiveness is an essential element of vindicating victims of injustice, and (c) the restorative model of justice also encourages criminals to take responsibility for their wrongdoings. I’ve already responded to literally all these attacks in the previous round Simply cross-apply my responses here.
(2) Crime rates and recidivism
Pro’s main point of contention with the argument of insecurity is that the impacts are going to be small. This is a hugely flawed argument because it ignores the fact that by Pro’s own characterization, a lot of petty thieves are going to be let off as a result of jury nullification, and this makes more people scared of the fact that there is a much higher chance that their money is going to be stolen. Pro did not contest this. Therefore, this argument has hugely tangible impacts.
On stigmatization, Pro argued that I was shifting the goal posts. This is a blatant lie. From round one, my argument was that these people are going to be punished less severely, and so society will take it upon themselves to punish them. Pro has chosen to completely ignore this, while instead arguing that more people will be labelled as ‘convicts’ on my side, so it’s worse for them. This argument is refuted by simple logic, because of the fact that excluding people nullified by the jury, both sides will have roughly the same numbers of convicts. But on Pro’s side, the people whom are nullified will in fact be treated worse by society, as conceded by Pro in his lack of response to this substantive point. So, on average, more people are treated worse by society in Pro’s world, because while on both sides, convicts are treated the same, on Pro’s side, those who are nullified by the jury are much worse off. Even if all of the people who are nullified on Pro’s side are convicts on my side they are treated better on my side because society would universally prefer a punished criminal to a criminal who was let off with no punishment. This was the analysis that Pro had to respond to, and has failed to do.
On drugs:
Again, Pro has failed to address the key issue here, namely that much more addictive drugs which are strongly prohibited in society today will face a huge influx, especially among teens, whom, presumably, are going to be the ones that are not convicted. This is particularly harmful because not only do people who do drugs will have free access to feed their addiction, people who are opposed to drugs, and people who do not have an opinion will be forced into drugs because of things like peer pressure. Note that this was analysis I provided to you in round two. This will ultimately create a drug-infested society, the alternative that Pro has failed to defend throughout his response to this argument. Pro, rather, argues for a world with no drug restrictions. This is extremely problematic, because even if we were to buy that teens somehow benefit from this, which they do not, as I’ve told you in my above analysis, this means that adults have free access to drugs, and this can create whole new circles of drug hierarchies among adults, ultimately leading to the same outcome, an influx of harmful and addictive drugs. It was quite telling when Pro shied away from responding to this, because it meant that Pro had failed to defend an undeniable outcome of his world.
(3) Minorities
This was probably the most impactful argument on this debate, and it was devastating for Pro not to provide a sufficient response to this. Pro tells you that somehow this is a unique tool to fight racism. When I question this, Pro says that a jury’s vote has to be unanimous to reach a conclusion. How come this ‘unanimous’ vote has not stopped 4.1 African-Americans being arrested for every 1 white person[1]? How come this ‘unanimous’ vote has had absolutely no bearing on the substantially high arrest rates of innocent African-Americans? It was not enough for Pro to say that the vote had to be unanimous. Pro had to tell us why, even if we were to believe that African-Americans are regularly impaneled on juries, these African-Americans could change anything. The status quo is proof that they can’t. In contrast, I gave you a much more reasonable argument. I told you that white people would get an unfair advantage over African-Americans, insofar as a racist jury lets them walk free, but they convict an African-American, when both defendants are guilty of the same crime. This was what Pro had to respond to, this was what Pro has failed to do for us.
Pro’s response to the fact that African-Americans are not impaneled on juries came after two rounds of thought, but even so, it was quite a flimsy response at best. Pro told you that there were laws preventing discrimination in the impaneling of juries. I’m sorry to inform Pro, but they don’t actually change anything. African-Americans still are systematically denied jury duty[2]. Since Pro’s response was predicated on the idea that African-Americans were in fact impaneled on juries, and my response takes out that premise, Pro’s response collapses.
And on the last issue of this argument. I’ve already told you countless times throughout this debate why jury nullification is a uniquely racist tool. Pro has chosen simply to drop this analysis and mislead you, but that won’t work.
Case gaps:
There were three main gaps in Pro’s case that were never really addresses by Pro, and automatically lose him this debate.
(1) Jurors need not necessarily be capable of truly judging a law, and whether it is necessary or not
(2) Truly unjustly convicted people can still be acquitted on my side
(3) In Pro’s world, justice is meted out based on the whims of the jurors, rather than actual evidence and truth
Vote Con.
Sources:
[1] Con R3 source 3
I've added some details to the HoF entries, unfortunately this one lacked any justified votes from which to grab one.
You or anyone else is of course welcome to suggest an endorsement for this debate, to be added to the HoF entry.
@Ragnar Thanks for the comment :)
@Bsh1 - This debate was really fun. It will be great if we can find another interesting topic to debate at some point.
I know :P Thanks! It's always exciting to get a debate included.
Congratulations, your debate is officially part of the first annual Hall of Fame.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2908/congratulations-to-the-hof-inductees
I agree 100%. This is one of the best debates I've seen in a while and definitely one of the best debate on the site.
What excellent form and conduct this debate had. Nice work.
Thanks for this debate and the detailed feedback. I learnt a lot, and look forward to more such debates.
And perhaps some rhetoric to make it sound reasonable, e.g. if twelve randomly selected people unanimously agree that a law is so egregiously unjust a person shouldn't be convicted for breaking it, it probably is unjust.
Not necessarily direct empirical evidence. Maybe: (1) Polls about opinions on particular issues by people who've been called to jury duty before or among particular juries and (2) examples of *nullification* rather than just of unjust convictions.
Like I get your point about "right places," but there isn't much evidence out there to support that, partly because there isn't much empirical evidence period.
I probably would have structured my case that way had I not wanted to include the Dworkin evidence, which I find really intriguing.
I also don't think your three points were that separable. I think they were one point.
And your case should've really had some explanation of why juries are likely to nullify in the right places, I think. Those were holes in Thett's case and in yours, in my view. I might be wrong, but it seems that way.
So I guess the way I'd structure this case is:
(1) Harms: that unjust laws exist (with examples and explanations of why they're unjust + analytical warrants re: why they're likely to exist) + that alternative solutions (e.g. lobbying) have failed to fix them
(2) Solvency: that jury nullification helps end or mitigate these injustices in some unique way (here, I'd say (a) jurors are likely to nullify in cases where unjust laws exist, (b) jurors are a unique check on governmental oppression, and (c) possibly about how the fact that twelve randomly selected people think a law is so overwhelmingly unjust that they should nullify, especially given the pressures to not nullify, probably means that the law is unjust in actuality, i.e. justice is defined by people or something of the sort -- I'm not so sure about (c)).
(3) Impact: The first level is obviously why securing justice is important; in addition, I'd add the law as integrity bit here, and say that blind legalism is nonsense and that the reasoning behind laws is the metric for upholding laws. So everything you said under (1). I think, broadly, the "law as integrity" bit doesn't function as offense but as defense (i.e. preemption), or as a *component* of this case that doesn't affirm independently, but I agree that it's useful to include.
So these three things would be one independent contention.
And then perhaps another independent contention about long-term political change (e.g. why jury nullification allows for lobbying to function more effectively, why it incentivizes/pressures governments to change laws, etc.).
Over 100 comments. Nice.
My failure to extend my case was an unintentional mistake on my part; I was rushing to get my speech up and forgot it was the last round. Won't do that again, lol. Also had no idea that speech was 19,000 characters...that's nuts.
Thanks for the vote!
Thanks for the vote
Thanks!
I will get a vote up on this as soon as possible, plan to read through it over the weekend.
Ugh I'll have to postpone my vote to Sunday.
I'll vote on this today, guys. I've started maintaining a list of debates to vote on and this stands at #1, I've already started flowing.
==================================================================
>Reported vote: drafterman // Moderator action: NOT Removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). RFD in comments.
Reason for not removal: drafterman’a RFD thoroughly analyzes sourcss and more than sufficiently meeets the votin standard.
==================================================================
One of the great mysteries of the universe. Like why some people won't even admit their mistakes. I guess we'll never know.
I did read your RFD. But, I still wonder why you shifted your position. Presumably, you analyzed the arguments the first time you voted, so why the shift?
You can read my RFD.
Quantity over quality, I guess.
Just curious as to why you changed your verdict on who won the debate.
Your RFD now is obviously more than sufficient and is thorough, at least in my view.
I. Introduction
This vote pertains to the debate entitled "Jury Nullification" submitted for challenge by DebateArt.Com user, bsh1 (member since August 11, 2018, henceforth known as PRO), on August 31st, 2018. The challenge was then accepted by DebateArt.Com user, shas04 (member since August 25th, 2018 henceforth known as CON). The topic of the debate was: "In the United States criminal justice system, jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice." The rules of the debate were, henceforth:
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up merits a loss.
It is under this structure, guidelines, and standards, that this debate will henceforth be analyzed, deconstructed, and judged.
(1/21)
II. Overall Analysis/Enumeration of Arguments
Over the course of the debate PRO raised the following primary arguments:
P1. Jury Nullification allows jurors to support the underlying justifying principles of law; (Round 1, PRO, Section II)
P2. Removal of Jury Nullification would make laws inflexible; (Round 1, PRO, Section III)
P3. Jury Nullification is a necessary check on government oppression; (Round 1, PRO, Section IV)
CON subsequently raised the following arguments and sub-arguments:
C1. Lobbying for better laws/against bad laws is the preferred alternative; (Round 1, CON, Framework)
C2. Jury Nullification inhibits the preferred model of justice, specifically:
C2a. Removes retribution for victims; (Round 1, CON, Section 1, subsection a)
C2b. Denies rehabilitation for actual criminals; (Round 1, CON, Section 1, subsection b)
C3. Will have a negative effect on society, specifically:
C3a. Increase crime rates and recidivism; (Round 1, CON, Section 2)
C3a. Will increase doubt and fear about criminal justice; (Round 1, CON, Section 2, subsection a)
C3b. Will increase stigmatism against criminals and result in vigilantism; (Round 1, CON, Section 2, subsection b)
C3c. Will result in an increase in drug use; (Round 1, CON, Section 2, subsection c)
C4. Will inordinately affect racial and ethnic minorities (Round 1, CON, Section 3)
C5. Actual cases of unjust/unconstitutional laws are too few (Round 2, CON, Introduction)
(2/21)
III. Analysis and weighing of arguments
A. P1 - Jury Nullification allows jurors to support the underlying justifying principles of law
Summary: PRO argued that jury nullification allows jurors to bypass the letter of the law in order to support the underlying principles of law itself. CON notes that jurors lack sufficient education and awareness of legal principles to make these kinds of judgements (Round 2, CON, Section 1, subsection a) and that such nullification is unnecessary as there is enough leeway in the current system for juries to find reasonable doubt (Round 3, CON, Introduction). Pro counters by saying that legal analysis is not required to make their decisions (Round 3, PRO, Section II, subsection A), that the legal system should not depend on manufactured reasonable doubt (Round 4, PRO, Section I, subsection 3) and that this non-uniqueness favors PRO, as CON has the burden to disprove the status quo (Round 4, Section I, subsection 1).
Analysis: PRO's first rebuttal asserts that jurors do not need to have legal expertise to evaluate the underlying principles of law. The citation PRO provides (linking to the third source of the first of PRO's round) is nothing more than a list of crimes with harsh sentences. There is nothing here to support PRO's counter argument here. However, CON's idea that someone needs to understand and be aware of something in order to evaluate it, is patently obvious: one cannot evaluate what one doesn't know about and doesn't understand. Given this self-evident principle in lack of no provided evidence contrary to it, CON's statement stands.
(3/21)
PRO's second rebuttal argues against manufactured doubt, but fails to distinguish how manufactured doubt in order to obtain an acquittal is substantively different than simply acquitting without obtaining it. PRO's claims that the presumption that acquittal = reasonable doubt only in a universe without Jury Nullification without realizing that this is the case in the status quo anyway, as Juries are usually not in a habit of broadcasting their decision to nullify.
This brings me to the last - and most important - point. PRO suggests that in the absence of uniqueness, CON inherits a burden to overcome the status quo. This false and against the shared burden of proof required by PRO's on rules (#8). In light of a shared BOP, non-uniqueness cannot favor one side over the other. The suggestion that CON has a burden in this case is a violation of the rules which, according to rule #10, should merit an automatic loss for PRO. Being as generous as I am, I will simply not rule on this argument alone, but unfortunately have to decide this specific argument in favor of CON.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (rule violation)
(4/21)
B. P1 - Removal of Jury Nullification would make laws inflexible
Summary: PRO notes that laws, as written, are inflexible and, without jury nullification, the justice system would be robbed of the ability to account for adapting exceptional, unforeseen circumstances. CON provides two primary rebuttals to this: That unjust and inflexible laws are already known and being worked against, alleviating the need for jury nullification (Round 2, CON, Section 2, subsection b) and that Jury Nullification magnifies the effect of personal prejudice over objective analysis (Round 2, CON, Section 2, subsection a). Pro responds to the second point by noting that personal prejudice is non-unique (Round 3, Section III) but does not address the extant pressure to overturn unjust laws.
Analysis: PRO notes the non-uniqueness of CON's counter argument again, but does not (in this case) call upon an extra burden for CON to overcome. However, this accusation of non-uniqueness was unwarranted. PRO rightfully notes that prejudice exists in the current system, but CON's argument was not about the mere existence of prejudice, but that Jury Nullification "amplifies" personal prejudices. One cannot deny that prejudices will exist more in an environment where they are allowed compared to one where they are not, and PRO treats CON's argument as simply being "personal prejudices exist" without addressing the comparative argument CON was making.
(5/21)
Secondly, PRO does not address CONs argument regarding the existing pressure to eliminate unjust laws as rendering Jury Nullification unnecessary.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (arguments not sufficiently addressed/dropped)
C. P3 - Jury Nullification is a necessary check on government oppression.
Summary: PRO portrays the existence of Jury Nullification as a check on government power in light of unjust laws and unjustly applied punishments. CON retorts that Jurors do not have the requisite knowledge whether a law is unjust or oppressive (Round 2, CON, Section 3, subsection a). PRO supported their argument that legislators cannot see all ends and therefore juries are necessary to check this gap in justice (Round 3, PRO, Section II, subsection A).
Analysis: PRO notes that no single group can account for all cases and that Juries fulfill a specific niche in providing checks and oversights to this situation. CON does not really address this aspect and drops it in later rounds, essentially conceding the point.
Result: Rule in favor of PRO (CON does not strictly address PRO's main argument, drops later support; concession)
(6/21)
D. C1 - Lobbying for better laws/against bad laws is the preferred alternative
Summary: CON presents as an alternative that unjust laws should be changed as a result of societal pressure, rather than Jury nullification. PRO notes that this is not mutually exclusive with respect to Jury Nullification (Round 2, PRO, "Firstly"), that lobbying takes too long (Round 2, PRO, “Secondly"), that this process is reactive and cannot help people currently under the scrutiny of unjust laws (Round 2, PRO, "Thirdly" & "Fourthly"). CON responded that, while Jury Nullification can exist alongside petitioning, the former inhibits the efficacy of the latter (Round 3, CON, Section a), that PRO offers no evidence evaluating the duration of the typical lobbying/petitioning process (Round 3, CON, section b), that PRO has acknowledged the existence of manufactured reasonable doubt as a way of acquitting the unjustly convicted (Round 3, CON, section b), and that petitioning is more democratic (Round 3, CON, section b).
In response to the notion that Jury Nullification inhibits the efficacy of petitioning, PRO claims CON's argument doesn't make sense and that petitions currently exist alongside Jury Nullification currently (Round 4, PRO, Section II, subsection A, subsection 3). In response to the notion that PROs statement of the lethargy of Petitions was unsupported, PRO states that CON has the burden to demonstrate that they are quick (Round 4, PRO, Section II, subsection 4, subsection B). In response to the democratic nature of petitions, PRO notes that petitions only reflect the will of the petitioners, not society at large (Round 4, PRO, II, subsection 4).
(7/21)
Analysis: PRO's dismissal of CON's argument as not making sense is inappropriate. A debater cannot simply assert that an argument is nonsensical and sweep it aside and expect a win. Furthermore, PRO again asserts that CON has an inherent burden that PRO does not (with respect to the duration of petitions). Either both sides must cite a source for an argument to be valid or neither do. To suggest that PRO can submit a sourced argument but CON needs to source a counterargument is in violation of rule #8 establishing a shared BOP. The issues regarding manufactured reasonable doubt have been addressed previously. PRO notes CON's absolute argument here regarding petitions as being reflections of society and portrays them as being reflections of specific interest groups. CON does not defend this point.
Result: Rule in favor of CON. In light of a wash on the first two points, PRO should win due to the concession of the last. However, the rule violation of the third outweighs that.
(8/21)
E. C2a - Jury Nullification removes retribution for victims
Summary: CON asserts that Jury Nullification permits acquittal of criminals and therefore denies the attainment of retribution of victims. PRO response that CON is assuming the existence of victims (Round 2, PRO, Section II, subsection A), that retribution should be done away with (Round 2, PRO, Section II, subsection A). CON notes that victims do exist and that they deserve retribution (Round 4, PRO, Section 1), that retribution is only part of the current model of justice (Round 3, CON, Section 1, subsection a) and that PRO has only addressed the unjustly convicted and does not address the unjustly acquitted (Round 3, Con, Section 1, subsection a).
(9/21)
Analysis: It is completely nonsensical to suggest that no victims exist in the criminal justice system. CON's argument does not require that ALL crimes have victims, just that "When victims do not see their attackers face justice" then "the criminal justice system has failed them." Unless PRO is suggesting that no crimes have victims (which they did not), then the refutation here falls flat. PRO attempts to argue against retribution as a undesirable element, but that is contrary to the overall structure of PRO's argument, which asserts that Jury Nullification should exist as part of the current criminal justice system ("Remember: I advocate for doing both jury nullification and Con's plan", Round 4, PRO, Section I, subsection A, subsection 1). PRO cannot both claim to include and exclude CON's plan. Lastly, PRO does focus solely on unjust laws and does not address CONs points about cases where criminals are let free. While PRO had previously tasked CON regarding specific ongoing occurrences of this, the idea that Jury Nullification allows for this is indisputable.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (straw manning of CON's arguments, contradiction, dropped points)
(10/21)
F. C2b - Jury Nullification denies rehabilitation
Summary: CON argues that Jury nullification can result in actual criminals being acquitted for actions they actually committed. Sans punishment, said people will not be disposed toward changing their criminal behavior. PRO response only via the scope of unjust laws, where rehabilitation is not necessary (Round 2, PRO, Section II, subsection B). CON notes the limited scope of this analysis and that sympathetic victims do not need Jury Nullification (Round 3, CON, Section 1, subsection b).
Analysis: PRO fails to address CON's arguments on the grounds that CON establishes (that of criminals failing to be convicted of actual crimes). Given that this is the only scope in which rehabilitation makes sense, this is the only reasonable scope the argument should have been addressed in. CON recognizes this, but PRO continues to fail to recognize the cases CON is raising.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (failure to address points, dropped points)
G. Jury Nullification increases crime rates and recidivism
Summary: In extending the rehabilitation argument, CON portends an increase of crime rates and recidivism as a result. PRO notes CONS lack of evidence or data (Round 2, PRO, Section III, subsection A). CON responds that it is an argument that is inherently speculative (Round 3, CON, Section 2), but PRO notes that this does not preclude the existence of supporting evidence (Round 4, PRO, Section IV, subsection A). PRO also defers to his counter arguments made to CON's argument vis-a-vis rehabilitation.
(11/21)
Analysis: PRO and CON go back and forth about the need for data. PRO paradoxically suggests that CON should be able to use data about the current system (where Jury Nullification is in effect) in order to speculate about a world in which it is not in effect. Most importantly, however, is PRO equates CON's argument to the rehabilitation argument and references his points there. The analysis of that section favored CON, and that favor is transferred here.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (see section F)
H. Jury Nullification increases doubt and fear about criminal justice
Summary: CON asserts that the ability of juries to deviate from the rule of law will erode the public's overall confidence in the law. PRO accuses this of being fearmongering (Round 2, PRO, Section III, subsection A) to which CON points out that this is not an actual rebuttal (Round 3, CON, Section 2, subsection a). PRO then attempts to refute the argument by noting a lack of evidence (Round 4, PRO, Section IV, subsection A).
Analysis: CON was right to point out that PRO's accusation of fear mongering wasn't an actual rebuttal. PRO's point of evidence is founded only on PRO's personal perception, which is hardly authoritative. PRO continues to ignore CON's references to people unjustly acquitted as a result of Jury Nullification, simply noting that criminals are still convicted given Jury Nullification, but without addressing CON's specific point.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (lack of rebuttal specific points)
(12/21)
I. Jury Nullification increases stigmatism against criminals and result in vigilantism
Summary: CON suggests that when people are acquitted of crimes they don't commit, the lack of expected punishment will stigmatize them in the eyes of the public, potentially resulting in the public taking matters into their own hands. PRO argues that Jury Nullification means the convicts aren't really convicts (since they're acquitted) and therefore avoid associated stigma (Round 2, PRO, Section III, subsection A). CON notes that the stigma is applied to the unconvicted criminals (Round 3, CON, Section 2, subsection a) to which PRO claims is a shifting of goal posts and asserts that actual criminals are more stigmatized than acquitted ones (Round 4, PRO, Section IV, subsection A).
Analysis: PRO's accusation of shifting goal posts is out of line. The context of CONs argument and use of the word "criminal" is clear: people who have committed a crime, but were not convicted of one. That is, "criminal" was used in a colloquial, rather than legal, sense. This is just an extension of PRO's overall refusal to acknowledge the fact that Jury Nullification allows criminals to get away with crime. However, CON offers no support that acquitted criminals are stigmatized more than convicted ones which PRO points out. That convicts are stigmatized at all is evident. That Jury Nullification reduces convictions is evident.
Result: Rule in favor of PRO (failure of opponent to support case in light of rebuttal).
(13/21)
J. Jury Nullification results in an increase in drug use
Summary: As a subset argument of increased crime rates (see section G), CON specifically addresses an increase in drug use as a result of failing to convict cases of drug use, and calls out drug use as a particular social evil. PRO notes that lax enforcement of drug laws doesn't substantially affect the drug use rates (Round 2, PRO, Section III, subsection B). Con notes that the data provided is only on marijuana which has medical benefits that make it an unsuitable representative of all drugs (Round 3, CON, Section 2, subsection b). PRO notes that there is otherwise no evidence of an increase in drug use (Round 4, PRO, Section IV, subsection B) while CON asserts certain groups will be susceptible and adversely affected by an increase in drug use (Round 4, CON, Section 2).
Analysis: CON does not provide evidence or reason to believe or accept that drug rates are somehow higher with Jury Nullification than without. Despite PROs cherry picked data, CON simply relies on the addictiveness of drugs which does not establish his conclusion. On the other hand, PRO branches out into arguing against Drug Prohibition altogether, saying that he can argue that alongside Jury Nullification, despite also saying he is arguing for Jury Nullification and CON's plan, which includes Drug Prohibition.
Result: Draw (lack of support on one side, out of scope arguments on the other)
(14/21)
K. Jury Nullification inordinately affects racial and ethnic minorities
Summary: CON notes the racial disparity in the make-up of most juries and that this disparity results in minorities (who are not proportionately represented) will suffer more (or alternatively benefit less) from Jury Nullification. PRO notes that racism in the criminal justice system is systemic and not unique to juries (Round 2, PRO, Section IV), and that instances of jury nullification are rare, thus the impact is minimal (Round 2, PRO, Section V). PRO further notes that proportionality is not required, as a single juror can sway a vote (Round 4, PRO, Section V). CON retorts that, if this were the case, then there would be more progress toward the system racism apparent in conviction rates (Round 4, CON, Section 3).
Analysis: By suggesting that racial injustice perpetuated by Jury Nullification is rare is to concede that it exists. Furthermore, the current state of systemic racism (which PRO acknowledges) works against the idea that Jury Nullification is somehow a counter to that. CON clearly demonstrates the ineffectiveness of Jury Nullification to combat racial injustice.
Result: Rule in favor of CON (implicit concession)
(15/21)
L. Actual cases of unjust/unconstitutional laws are too few to matter.
Summary: CON argues that there aren't enough unjust or unconstitutional laws to justify the existence of Jury Nullification. PRO criticizes CON's lack of specific, supported details and suggests that they are more than CON implies (Round 3, PRO, Section I). PRO also suggests that Jury Nullification is about more than unjust/unconstitutional laws, and that the impact can be great regardless (Round 3, PRO, Section I).
Analysis: CON mischaracterizes PRO's stance and presents an unsubstantiated rebuttal that goes on to be unrefuted.
Result: Rule in favor of PRO (implicit concession)
M. Overall Results.
Arguments in favor of CON: 8
Arguments in favor of PRO: 3
Draws: 1
Results: CON won on more argument points/rebuttals than PRO. Given that PRO's multiple rule violations with respect to shared burden of proof, it is generous to not simply rule completely in favor of CON.
(16/21)
IV. Source Analysis
A. PRO's Sources:
1. http://everydaydebate.blogspot.com/2015/10/ld-novdec-2015-jury-nullification.html
This is the source of a statement quoted by PRO in support of the overall principle of Jury Nullification.
2. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-brauchli/three-strikes-and-youre-i_b_252473.html
PRO references a specific event for which this source substantiates. However, this source merely shows that the event happened, not that its occurrence has the meaning intended by PRO.
3. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/23-petty-crimes-prison-life-without-parole/
This reference is mainly a list of crimes for which life sentences have been given. They do not support PROs contention that any laws are preventing people from keeping themselves safe from abusive parents. One specific instance was regarding a person stealing a handgun from an abusive parent, but there are no substantive details provided that one can draw a conclusion from.
PRO also references the possession of 32 grams of marijuana, but neglects to mention the intent to distribute, misrepresenting his source.
4. https://newsone.com/1621445/top-5-most-ridiculous-court-sentences-of-all-time/
PRO references a specific case in this source, seemingly quoting legal authorities. But he is in fact quoting a second-hand account, not a primary source. We don't know, in fact, if police deemed it "unweighable" and the lack of quotes in the article suggests that this wasn't, in fact, a direct quote from a police official. No police officials were actually named or quoted. PRO exaggerates the impact of this source.
(17/21)
5. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2890&context=lawreview
This provides the source of a case referenced by PRO.
6. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301148?journalCode=ajph
This source supports data regarding the increase in mortality of parolees. However, PRO spins this as an effect of "unjust" convictions. The source makes no reference to the type of conviction.
7. https://psmag.com/social-justice/tangible-benefits-forgiveness-97627
This is the source of a quote reference by PRO in support of forgiveness over retribution. However, PRO misuses the quote specifically in favor of "protecting and vindicating victims of injustice" The quote and studies reference "victims" in a general, not legal sense, and speak of psychological burdens physically weighing people down resulting in absurd conclusions as unforgiving people not being able to jump higher. The source admits that it does not know the underlying mechanism.
8. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-justice-system-neglect-forgiveness/
This source supports PROs statements regarding the role of forgiving vs. punitive measures in criminal justice.
9. https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/retributive.justice
This source supports PROs statements regarding the lack of victim satisfaction in punitive justice models.
10. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1792&context=open_access_dissertations
This is a 318 page document for which PRO provides no specific citation regarding which part of the document supports his argument. There can be no expectation that readers, or debaters, are going to read through an entire novel in order to ascertain which parts support the argument at hand (if any). This source should be dismissed.
(18/21)
11. https://www.cato.org/congressional-testimony/drug-legalization-criminalization-harm-reduction
This source supports PRO's statements regarding drug prohibition.
12. https://nypost.com/2017/09/14/marijuana-legalization-hasnt-led-to-more-drug-abuse-study/
This source supports PRO's statements regarding marijuana legalization.
13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40282580?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
This source is a theoretical argument which PRO then portrays as a practical argument. The abstract does not elaborate. Full analysis of the article is behind a membership wall and should not be considered for analysis.
14. https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/feb/16/jury-nullification-crucial-check-government-power/
This source supports PRO's claims about rarity and impact of Jury Nullification
15. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/acts-of-congress-held-unconstitutional.html
PRO referenced this source in an attempt to refute a statement by CON pertaining to unconstitutional acts per year. However, it is simply a static list of unconstitutional acts, ever, going back as far as 1789 and not an accurate representation of the rate of new unconstitutional acts, despite the fact PRO portrays it as such.
16. https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/21/us/top-u-s-supreme-court-decisions-fast-facts/index.html
This is just a handful of significant Supreme Court cases, not a statement that supports an overall analysis of unconstitutional law.
17. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-paul-manafort-fraud-trial-20180816-story.html
18. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/13/opinions/judge-ellis-fast-furious-manafort-trial-wu/index.html
Both of these sources support PRO's issues regarding what kinds of technical details jurors must rule on.
(19/21)
19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death-qualified_jury
This source establishes the existence of "juries which are impaneled specifically to determine if someone deserves the death penalty."
20. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/156/51.html
This is a 43 page court decision that PRO attempts to use to support the legality of Jury Nullification. There is no abstract or summary a reader could use to determine the overall disposition of the source or evaluate it in a timely manner. It should be dismissed.
21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Brailsford_(1794)
PRO attempts to use this case as evidence of the legality of Jury Nullification, but the source itself notes that this case has been contradicted by later cases. Invalid.
22. https://www.change.org/
23. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/
24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition_in_the_United_States
PRO uses these sources to argue that petitions are common. The mere legality or existence of the ability of a petition does not inherently suggest how often it is seriously used. These do not support PRO's arguments.
25. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/the-white-house-petition-site-is-a-joke-and-also-the-future-of-democracy/267238/
Supports PRO's claim that some petitions are insincere.
26. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_(petitioning_system)
27. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2017-04-18/white-house-considers-dumping-petition-site
These sources support PRO's case regarding the failure of current petitioning systems.
(20/21)
28. https://www.insidesources.com/fired-im-gay-thats-still-legal-ohio/
29. https://www.vox.com/2018/6/26/17492410/travel-muslim-ban-supreme-court-ruling
30. https://www.bustle.com/p/7-shockingly-sexist-laws-in-america-that-can-be-used-against-women-at-any-time-43140
These sources are cited examples of unjust laws in support of PRO's arguments.
31. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-white_jury
Source for a specific quote.
B. CON's Sources
1. https://bigthink.com/politeia/why-dont-black-people-get-selected-for-juries
Source used in support of CON's statement of racially disproportionate juries.
2. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/about
Source regarding the requirements to get a response to a petition.
3. https://www.quora.com/Which-is-more-addictive-cocaine-or-marijuana-Why-Which-one-has-worse-withdrawals
Source supporting the differences in marijuana use versus harder drugs like cocaine.
4. https://www.npr.org/2017/09/27/551864016/fewer-youths-incarcerated-but-gap-between-blacks-and-whites-worsens
Source used to show the disparity in incarceration of African-Americans versus Whites.
5. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/state-laws-held-unconstitutional.html
Supports CON's statistic regarding unjust laws repealed in this decade.
C. Analysis and Comparison
Both sides used sources for the support of simple quotes, numbers, or other statistics or historical facts. However, PRO also misused and misrepresented a number of sources, as well as providing mere info dumps that no reader or debate could reasonably be expected to analyze.
(21/21)
This tactic of pointing out where you think you didn't mess up doesn't undo or address the areas where you did. If a dog shits on your carpet, you don't particularly care about all the areas of the carpet he didn't shit on, do you?
This was the original reason:
"Arguments are insufficiently explained. Referencing a single argument and a single piece of rebuttal is not sufficient. The voting guidelines explicitly state that the voter needs to reference specific *arguments* and *counter-arguments,* and compare them. The voter must have good reason to neglect a large number of arguments and counterarguments from both sides when making their decision. While this voter analyzes the issue of retribution, the voter fails to (1) analyze any other issue or have weighing analysis that compares different issues and (2) track the trajectory of this argument through the entire round."
I've proven, and you've dropped, that (1) the weighing issue is legitimate and (2) even the sources issue, in your best case, is legitimate, and importantly, that analyzing sources isn't weighing analysis.
The fact remains that a moderator mistake has been used in an act of moderation. In the ORIGINAL post by Tej, wherein he explains why he ruled the way he did with respect to weighing analysis, the ONLY specific aspect of my vote that he mentioned was "merely saying X was sourced but Y wasn't isn't explaining that an argument was sufficient to win the debate." Again, you keep suggesting that the "weighing issue" and the "source" issue are different. They aren't. The "source issue" IS the "weighing issue." You just don't want to refer to it like that because you recognize it was a mistake to mischaracterize my argument as such. This is made further evident by your attempts to reframe the "sources" thing as a red herring. You have simply replaced "sources" with "weighing analysis" forgetting that you originally defined the weighing analysis based ONLY on the sources!
Simply put, the mods fucked up. There has always been this head-up-the-ass-ness when it comes to the voting standards (evidenced by the fact that a person has to pour through troves of documentation just to understand it all) and it is a shame that it's now coming to this site.
I'll note that I had no objection to the removal of my very first vote. Because that was a valid removal. But I'm not going to sit here and let you guys just invent any reason you want and think that's going to fly, even after you paint over that very same reason with different words without even admitting you made a mistake to begin with.