Jury Nullification

Thanks to Shas04 for accepting the debate.

------------

Let us begin by acknowledging a simple fact, namely, that the legal system is, at all stages, discretionary. Police can choose to arrest this person but not that person. Prosecutors can choose to prosecute some but not others. Judges can render wildly different sentences for similar crimes. Parole officers can choose to be lenient or harsh and parole boards may not always act in the same way on like applications. This discretion is in some cases a reasonable reflection of circumstance, in other cases, however, it may simply be arbitrary. While this variance in the legal system may offend our sense of justice, it is unavoidable. To argue against discretion, which I take here to mean the freedom to make a choice, is to argue against the entire legal system. For Con, then, it is not enough to accuse jury nullification of being problematic because it is discretionary or potentially arbitrary, as this criticism is non-unique to any component of the legal system. Con must show some kind of unique harm to jury nullification that would not simultaneously justify throwing the baby out with the bath water, or, in this instance, the legal system out with jury nullification.

It is the job of the jury to uphold the law. Therefore, the question of what is "law" arises prior to the resolution, and must first be answered before there can be any meaningful discussion on jury nullification. There is, on the one hand, the literal text of the law, the setting aside of which we call jury nullification. But any lawyer worth his salt will tell you that there is more to the law than its text. Politicians that create law do so for a reason, imbuing the law with a kind of intent which judges attempt to decode in order to better interpret it. There is, hence, a secondary notion of the law as a kind of miasma of purposes and emotions and, importantly, values. This is the law as integrity.

Consider for a moment a hypothetical. A legislature, acting in accordance with its lawful powers, passes a series of bills. These are that mango but not orange ice cream is prohibited, that women should be denied the vote, and that watermelon shall be called "waterpumpkin" on Thursdays.

If you were a constituent living in this hypothetical country, you would certainly have good cause to be flummoxed by these laws, insofar as they lack any discernible rhyme or reason. Why, for example, should watermelon become "waterpumpkin" only on Thursdays? It's a completely arbitrary and random rule to impose. It is prima facie absurd.

We typically hold, of course, that when people make laws in reality, they have reasons for the laws they make. For instance, we mandate the wearing of seat belts to save lives. The principle of respect for life justifies that law. Similarly, when we pass laws giving women the franchise, we ground those laws in the principle of equality, which gives justification to the legislation. It is the presence of reasons like these (i.e. respect for life and equality) rooted in commonly held principles that distinguishes legitimate law from unacceptable gobbledygook. There is a reason why we require the government to justify to us what actions it takes, namely, that we demand the government's actions be rooted in logic and fundamental respect for human dignity rather than arbitrary whim or brazon self-interest.

Think about it like this. Principles like respect for life and equality form the foundation of a house, and the laws form the walls which constrain our freedom. If the house lacks a foundation, the walls are flimsy and liable to collapse. Moreover, the foundation is an integral element of the house itself. Law as integrity posits that values are just as much "law" as the statutes themselves, much like the foundation is just as much part of the structure of the house as the walls and roof are.

"If people accept that they are governed not only by explicit rules laid down in past political decisions but by whatever other standards flow from the principles these decisions assume, then the set of recognized public standards can expand and contract organically, as people become more sophisticated in sensing and exploring what these principles require in new circumstances, without the need for detailed legislation or adjudication on each possible point of conflict." [1] The notion that law is constructed not just by the written rules, but by the conventions and principles that undergird those written statues, is the notion of law as integrity--i.e. lawmakers and citizens insist that the government use a coherent set of principles to craft legislation, and that these principles are integral parts of the legislation themselves.

The impact of this argument is simple. If jurors choose to ignore the text of the law, by which a defendant is clearly guilty, and instead acquit the defendant on the basis of the democratic values which justify and legitimize government action, they are not, in fact, overturning or ignoring the law. Rather, they are respecting law's most basic and fundamental element: its justifying principles. Without these justifying principles, there can be no such thing as legitimate laws.

5 - http://tinyurl.com/hukadx9

Thank you! Please Vote Pro.

Framework: 

Pro wants this to be a debate about truly horrific violations of human rights because of some ways in which the justice system treats criminals harshly and unjustly. I support the fact that while there are some instances where there is a miscarriage of justice, I support, as an alternative, people lobbying the government to change these laws, because let's face the truth. Not all laws are Jim Crow laws, where the sentences are so abhorrent that they are unacceptable. Most laws, contrary to Pro's characterization, are in fact just and fair. Things like life imprisonment fro carrying a minute amount of drugs are the kind of laws that I support lobbying as an alternative. Why is this system better than Pro's model? For the simple fact that prevention is better than cure, and actually stopping these miscarriages from happening in the first place is better than nullifying them when they do arise. Also, my model is mutually exclusive because if my model is implemented, then there won't be the need for juries to nullify, because unfair laws would already have been stifled, so Pro can't come up here and say he can implement my model along with his.  

Case split:

The three arguments that I'l bring to the table are (1) That this is a hindrance to the criminal justice system, (2) That crime rates and recidivism will increase, (3) That there will be a disproportional disadvantage to racial and ethnic minorities

My case:

(1) That this is a hindrance to the criminal justice system

a.  No scope for justice, and for retribution for victims  

When victims do not see their attackers face justice, that is when the criminal justice system has failed them. Their attackers face absolutely no punishment, and are even acquitted, just because the members of the jury saw their punishment as unconstitutional or immoral. They see that their attackers go scot free, and can go on doing the things they've been doing. This is quite a horrible realization for the victims, when they realize that the man who murdered their husband is back on the streets again, just because the jury didn't feel like the death penalty is a reasonable punishment. The fact that a law, objectively, might not be fair, is never a reason for the perpetrators of crimes can walk away without any punishment whatsoever. It is never a reason for victims of a crime to not receive the justice they deserve, the justice that they were promised. Jury nullification actively perpetuates the harmful notion that it's okay for victims to not receive justice, and for criminals to receive no punishment, as long as a law is considered unjust. Also, jury nullification poses another unique harm towards justice because jury nullification is deeply objective. While some juries may perceive the death penalty unfair and unjust, another jury might think that the death penalty is the perfect punishment for murderers. This means, that people who committed the same level of crime can be sent to jail, or can walk free depending on the jury. This is frankly a horrible way for criminal justice to be meted out. The criminal justice system should be based on functional legal principles, rather than simply letting a jury decide whether a law is unconstitutional or not. So, at the end of this strand, Pro has to tell us why retribution is an unnecessary aspect of the criminal justice system, and Pro has to tell us why a system of objective punishment is a good enough standard for the criminal justice system.

b. No scope for rehabilitation of criminals

Criminals are only truly rehabilitated when they realize the extent of their crimes, and are truly remorseful for them. This can never happen on their side of the house, when whenever they are convicted of a crime that a jury feels has to harsh a sentence attached to it, they walk free. Murderers do not realize the extent of harm they've caused to the victim's family and friends, when they do not even understand the depth of the crime they've committed. That's what prison does to people. Prison makes people realize what they've done, what damage they've caused, and why they should never do what they did again. Instead, on Pro's side of the house a criminal, if nullified, can just walk free and keep doing the things they've been doing again.This is a truly appalling world, where criminals don't know why what they did was wrong. All they know is that they committed a murder, they didn't get arrested for it, and can do it again. Pro has to defend this world, and tell us why jury nullification is worth this cost.

(2) That crime rates and recidivism will increase

Following from my previous argument, the outcomes of a lack of rehabilitation are pretty devastating. What follows from this policy is a world where criminals commit a crime, don't get arrested for it, and continue to do it again. This looks like a world where seventeen year olds who carry crack have complete faith that the jury will nullify a fifteen year sentence, and so, are willing to commit the crime, or in the case of criminals, commit the crime again. This is truly a scary world to live in. Two ways that society will react to this:

a. Insecurity

Pro's world is a world where people are scared to sleep at night, for fear of someone attacking them. This looks like people feeling insecure about stepping onto the streets, for fear of someone assaulting them. This looks like parents of an adolescent being scared to death that their child will go into drugs, and might never come out. This creates an insecure society, one any responsible government 

should be vying to change. Instead, my side of the house gives people an alternative. It gives criminals a deterrent, and thus creates a much more safe and secure environment.

b. Stigmatization

The other outcome that inflated crime rates will have on society is that people will be a lot more averse to criminals. Why is this true? Firstly, since more murderers, more junkies and such will be on the streets that have not received any punishment, rhetoric is, they got out easy. Rhetoric is, they didn't get what they deserved, so society will take it upon themselves to punish them. This looks like employers being more stringent and harsh towards criminals, and not offering them jobs at all. This looks like colleges denying admissions to drug possessing students. This looks like criminals being isolated and separated from society, because society wants to give them the punishment they deserve. Secondly, people are more scared and insecure around these people, because they have not undergone rehabilitation, and changed, mentally. This is another reason for society to deny them jobs in a company, or admissions in for college, because they are scared of the fact that they might offend again, and commit crimes again, all because on Pro's side, the key deterrent, the thought of prison, does not exist. What are the outcomes of this? Simple. Criminals will be isolated and pushed away from society, and will be alienated by society. This will foster harsh feelings in the minds of criminals, a hatred towards society, which will undoubtedly motivate them to offend again, to commit a crime again. This creates a vicious cycle tat these criminals can never escape from, and one that society as a whole cannot escape from. This is an unquestionable consequence in Pro's world, and Pro has to respond to this key bit of analysis.

c. Drug usage will become rampant, particularly in teenagers 

Teenagers caught with drugs are likely to be given a sentence of around fifteen years for carrying drugs. The difference is, on Pro's side of the house, the jury would acquit that teenager, rather than tell him what he did was wrong. The jury would acquit that teenager because he has potential for the future, and the jury does not want to deny him the prime years of his life because of him carrying an 'unweighable' amount of crack. The jury will want to forgive that child, to give him a second chance. Ultimately, this will create an atmosphere where teens feel like they can get away with doing drugs, and more teens will fall into the shady black market of drugs that they can never escape from. This amplifies things like peer pressure, where more and more teens begin to succumb to the temptation of taking just a small amount, soon transcending into something they can never escape from.

(3) That there will be a disproportional disadvantage to racial and ethnic minorities

A average jury consists disproportionately of white people. African-Americans are still actively excluded from the jury system because racist prosecutors can give any reason they want to dismiss them. "We've had African-American jurors excluded because they're too old at 43, because they're too young at 28, while other white jurors much older are being accepted, and other white jurors much younger are being accepted," The Equal Justice Initiative’s Bryan Stevenson told NPR [1]. What this should tell you is that the American jury system in intrinsically racist. Why does jury nullification amplify this harm? As Pro rightly said, a jury system is meant to be a system by which you are judged by your peers, who can understand the moral nuances on a case-by-case basis. The problem with this is that African-Americans are no judged by their fellow African-Americans. They're not judged by their peers. They are, in fact judged predominantly by white people, who will have an inherent bias against them. No one can deny the fact that racism is still a prevalent problem in the US, and that African-Americans just don't receive the same outcomes of jury nullification that white people do. An African-American could be arrested for committing a crime, while a white person gets acquitted for committing that same crime. This perpetuates the already existing harmful biases in the criminal justice system, and gives one set of people an advantage over another, just because of his skin color. Racism is never a principle by which we should stand.      

Vote Con.

Sources:

[1] https://bigthink.com/politeia/why-dont-black-people-get-selected-for-juries

Con's arguments here are not so much offering a framework as they are offering a counterplan (CP). That CPis that citizens should lobby congress to make changes to unjust laws. There are several problems with this CP.

Firstly, this CP is not, as Con suggests, mutually exclusive. There is no reason why citizens cannot both lobby congress and nullify unjust laws which are already on the books. The status quo is evidence enough against the supposed exclusivity, insofar as lobbying and jury nullification exist in it. Perm Con's argument and do both. I can get the benefits of lobbying in my world while also retaining the additional safeguard of jury nullification.

Secondly, lobbying can take years to bear fruit. After the passage of an unjust law it may take years or decades to successfully lobby for that law's repeal, even if said lobbying began immediately after its passage. Jury nullification, by contrast, can prevent injustices from occurring while the unjust law is still on the books. Jury nullification is thus a necessary stopgap measure that can prevent injustices in the short-term, even as lobbying seeks to prevent injustices in the long-term. In this sense, the two strategies are complementary.

Thirdly, even where lobbying does cause the repeal of an unjust law, people convicted for breaking that unjust law will remain felons and will remain incarcerated because their actions were illegal at the time they took them. Lobbying can therefore not replace jury nullification's ability to prevent those people being made felons or incarcerated in the first place. 

Con's argument here is that, when jury nullification is implemented, victim's do not see criminals punished for their crimes. But this analysis is too simplistic, because it assumes that the victims are, in fact, victims. Consider that punishing someone who does not deserve it victimizes the person who was punished. The whole notion of "retribution" has packed in it an idea of desert; i.e. that retribution is punishment for some wrong that was committed. If no wrong was committed (and it certainly cannot be wrong to break an unjust law) than there can be no justified retribution. There are two key takeaways here. Firstly, victims of unjust laws are not legitimately regarded as victims. Secondly, punishing someone who does not deserve punishment victimizes the person who was undeservedly punished, turning Con's impacts against him (insofar as his world would permit people to be punished for breaking unjust laws).

Con has presented literally no data to back up his claim that jury nullification will increase crime rates. Because all of Con's arguments here are predicated on his earlier claims about rehabilitation, simply cross-apply my arguments against his rehabilitation claims here.

Con's first argument (insecurity) is filled with little more than wild and fear-mongering speculation unsupported by anything resembling a warrant. Perhaps the only shred of logic we see in this sub-point is that Con's world has a deterrent (but so does mine, since many criminals will continue to be incarcerated in either world).

Con's second argument is equally fear-mongering, but it seems to support my case rather than my opponent's. The label of "convict" makes it far harder to obtain jobs and leads to social isolation, which have been demonstrated to lead to recidivism. [5] But, I see no evidence offered by my opponent that non-convicts who have committed crimes are equally isolated and denied job opportunities. In this way, the evidence actually seems to support jury nullification (as a means to prevent criminals being convicted) as a tool to fight recidivism. At worst for Con, this turns his argument. At best, it shows that either world will isolate criminals, leading to recidivism, which moots his argument.

I'd like to add, since Con talks a bit about druggies, that "drug prohibition creates high levels of crime. Addicts are forced to commit crimes to pay for a habit that would be easily affordable if it were legal...More dramatically, because drugs are illegal, participants in the drug trade cannot go to court to settle disputes, whether between buyer and seller or between rival sellers. When black-market contracts are breached, the result is often some form of violent sanction, which usually leads to retaliation and then open warfare in the streets...[D]rug prohibition channels over $40 billion a year into the criminal underworld. Alcohol prohibition drove reputable companies into other industries or out of business altogether, which paved the way for mobsters to make millions through the black market." [6] Jury nullification, as a tool to fight against unjust and overly-restrictive drug laws, actually prevents recidivism, turning Con's argument. 

Contrary to what Con supposes, more lax policies regarding drugs have little to no effect on the rates of drug use. For example, one study found that "more liberal marijuana laws have had 'minimal impact' on marijuana use, other substance use, alcohol consumption or crime rates, the study found." [7] Not exacting legal punishments for drug use is thus not going to increase rates of substance use. 

Con says that jury nullification is intrinsically racist. In fact, the entire US Justice System is intrinsically racist. So how on earth are Con's arguments unique? Answer: they're not.

Furthermore, when African Americans are impaneled on juries, they can use their position to fight racist laws or racist applications of the law by refusing to convict on the basis of those laws or applications. [8] African Americans don't have that ability to directly prevent racist convictions in other areas of the justice system, making jury nullification a uniquely powerful tool to fight racism. Because African-Americans are a reliably Democratic voting bloc, blue legislators have little incentive to cater to their needs (why pander to them when you already have their votes) and African-Americans are likely a minority in the police, prosecutorial, and judicial ranks. Only by jury nullification can a minority member, acting alone, have such a directly beneficial impact. This turns Con's argument.

Jury nullification is rare, so even if you buy that Con's deriving some impacts from his arguments, those impacts are going to be small. [9]

1 - https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301148?journalCode=ajph

2 - http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/tangible-benefits-forgiveness-97627

3 - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-justice-system-neglect-forgiveness/

4 - https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/retributive.justice

5 - https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1792&context=open_access_dissertations

6 - https://www.cato.org/congressional-testimony/drug-legalization-criminalization-harm-reduction

7 - https://nypost.com/2017/09/14/marijuana-legalization-hasnt-led-to-more-drug-abuse-study/

8 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/40282580?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

9 - https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/feb/16/jury-nullification-crucial-check-government-power/

Thank you! Please Vote Pro!

Overview:

Pro would have us believe that this debate is primarily about unconstitutional laws, unfair laws that are extremely harsh towards criminals. This is not reality. The reality of this debate is that jury nullification is more of a process to decide whether a certain punishment is too harsh, or whether a certain criminal deserves punishment. This is the lens through which we should view this debate. On the other hand, regarding unconstitutional laws, only twenty such cases have been reported since the turn of the decade. Society is becoming more progressive, that's why we see the fact that there are not a lot of unconstitutional laws, per se, out there. Maybe if this debate were set in the eighteen hundreds, we could accept Pro's framework of this debate, but certainly not in this day and age. And even if Pro were to argue about these twenty remarkable cases, the unjust law in question was rectified very quickly, contrary to Pro's rhetoric on how lobbying and petitioning takes a while to take effect. They do not. Keeping this in mind, I'll talk more about why my framework is actually mutually exclusive in the next round. 

Rebuttal road map:

Three big ideas in Pro's case: (1) The law as an integrity, (2) On this whole idea of flexibility, (3) On checking oppression. I'll deal with all of these systematically.

My rebuttal:

(1) The law as an integrity

What is Pro trying to convey to you through this argument? Pro is trying to tell you that if jurors choose to ignore the text of the law, and instead acquit the defendants on the basis of democratic values, they are not, in fact ignoring or overturning the law. Rather, they are respecting the justifying principles of the law. Two responses here:

(a) On jurors

Through this argument, Pro assumes that juries are extremely fluent in things like democratic values and legislature. Let's deal with the reality here. The fact of the matter is that the jury, while certainly being able to discern things like the moral sophistication of a scenario, are not always fluent in the legislative sophistication of a scenario. That's why juries are appointed to decide whether a defendant is guilty without reasonable doubt, and not to decide whether a law is unjust or not without reasonable doubt. While juries may not think certain laws are fair, they do not always know the administrative reasons behind those laws. They do not always know the demographics and statistics which make a seemingly unfair law actually justifiable. Like legislators, who may not understand the moral intricacies of a certain situations, ordinary people might not always understand the legal intricacies of a certain law. This is a direct attack on the thrust of Pro's argument, that the jury isvastly knowledgeable on things like democratic values.   

(b) The threat to the law

Let's strip the law down to its bare minimum. What is the law? The law is a set of rules aimed to properly govern and administrate society, in such a way that peace is maintained. This is why it's so problematic for Pro to say that the standards of law and expand and contract organically. Pro is putting the responsibility on a jury to decide whether death row is a morally justifiable punishment for convicted murderers. Pro is putting the responsibility on a jury to decide whether a thief should go to jail for a few months, or for him to be let off with a warning and a slap on the wrist. And apparently, this exercise is supposed to make people more sophisticated in understanding legal principles. The biggest problem with this line of reasoning is that Pro fails to understand that while he/she wants to talk about the standards of the law, these standards dip the lowest on Pro's side of the house, when Pro lets ordinary people take it upon themselves to solve impending legal issues, rather than letting actual legislators, who actually understand the nuances and ramifications of these legal issues, do this work for society, because let's face it. Even if people have a sophisticated understanding of certain issues, there is a reason why we leave it to legislators to maintain the legal standards of society.  

(2) On this whole idea of flexibility

In this argument, Pro wants to talk to us about why people have an understanding on the moral nuances of each given scenario, and so, are a defendant's last hope. Again, a few responses here.

(a) This amplifies the extent at which personal prejudices and biases can affect a defendant

Pro would have us believe that all jurors are perfectly sound moral actors, who do everything only for the will of the case presented to them. This would exist in an ideal society, but unfortunately, this is not reality. In reality, all jurors are set back by their personal biases and prejudices. In reality, jurors might overrule a law for a white person, but might not do so for an African-American, or a Mexican. The odds of this happening are far more likely right now, especially because of the Trump administration spreading harmful and untrue stereotypes, like 'Mexicans are rapists' or 'African-Americans are murderers'. Now while these comments may not be taken seriously by the whole of society, it certainly affects majors blocks of people, especially hardcore Republican supporters. This is where jury selection comes into play, because Pro completely ignored my reasoning on why African-Americans are not even selected as jurors in the first place. It was damning for Pro to ignore this. Just cross-apply my reasoning on why African-Americans are not selected as jurors. Then you will realize how intrinsically racist the jury system is, and you will see how jury nullification amplifies this racism. I told you in my third argument that jury nullification is a unique tool, insofar as it can offer freedom for one person and incarceration for another, solely based on their race. It is simply not enough for Pro to say that my criticism is not unique, because of the fact that without jury nullification, jurors have to actually make a decision based on the facts and the evidence presented to them, whereas jury nullification gives them the unique opportunity to judge based on, not the facts of the case, but rather on their personal feelings. The latter is clearly the system where personal prejudices and biases are more of a deciding factor to the defendant.

(b) On stopping malfunctions in the system

The other main contention that Pro has asserted through this argument is that jury nullification is a tool to make legislators and government more aware of mistakes in the legal system. Through this contention, Pro has banked on the idea that there are many horrendous and appalling laws out there. Now, while I may agree that some laws are carry a miscarriage of justice, these laws are being fought by society on a daily basis. Society takes action against truly unjust laws, which is why, as I mentioned earlier, there are, right now, not a whole lot of truly unjust laws out there, at least inasmuch as there are controversial punishments. On punishment, as I've already told you before, society often might not be the best judges of whether a certain punishment is necessary or not, insofar as legislators are the ones with actual knowledge about things like statistics and demographics, thus being ale to judge whether a particular law is necessary, effective, and justified. What actually happens, as a result of jury nullification, is that while some minor technicalities, for which there are low sentences in the status quo anyway, are smoothed out, actual criminals are getting out as a result of a biased jury and the overall ineffective system that is jury nullification, truly effective laws are overturned by jurors, and, as a result, actual, tangible harms can be seen in society. So even if you believe that technicalities can be sorted out on Pro's side, the harms of this system far outweigh its benefits.

(3) On checking oppression 

Pro tries to tell you through this argument that this is a unique system through which jurors can prevent the government from overstepping its bounds. My responses are as follows.

(a) The role of the jury

Through this argument, Pro tries to portray juries as these multifaceted organizations that do everything from discerning moral subtleties of a case to determining whether a law is oppressive or not. the problem with this is, like I've told you throughout this round, juries simply do not have enough data to decide whether a law is oppressive or not, or whether a law is democratic or not. This argument, like Pro's first argument, asserts that a jury is well-versed in whether a law will contradict or complement societal norms. I've told you throughout this round that this is untrue. I've told you that there is a reason that we leave it to legislators and lawmakers to decide on functional legal principles for society to follow. Also, I told you, in response to Pro's second argument, that the fact that a jury thinks a law is unconstitutional does not necessarily mean that law is unconstitutional. They simply do not understand the legal nuances and intricacies behind certain laws, and thus, might not always make the right decision while choosing to overturn it. The effects of this can be devastating to society. Pro's world is one with a society where legal norms are decided on societal whims, and, like I told you in response to Pro's first argument, this is a world where standards dip the lowest. On my side, I believe in letting actual lawmakers make my laws, and, if they turn out to be truly horrific, lobbying and petitioning against it. my solution is not simply to say - see, you made a mistake with legislature then, so I'm letting criminals go free for it now, which is precisely what Pro is saying. This is why, I say, let the jury do what they were meant to do, and judge cases. Don't let them make a misinformed judgement and overturn a law, and by doing so, create tangible societal consequences.

Vote Con.

Sources:

I didn't use any sources for these rebuttals. 

Overview:

Two things to point out here. Firstly, on Pro's stance. In the first round, Pro's stance was quite unclear, because he had an argument both on the misapplication of just laws, and on unjust laws. But in round two, Pro's stance became quite clear when he used rhetoric on unjust laws to refute the better part of my first argument. But then in round three, Pro made it quite clear to us that his case stood for the misapplication of just laws. Assuming this is Pro's final stance, I'll use this very stance to defend my arguments. But secondly, Pro made quite a huge concession in his response to my case, namely, that on my side of the house, a jury can manufacture reasonable doubt within themselves to free a truly unjustly convicted person, thus restoring all the benefits that Pro's side has on my side. This is devastating to Pro's case, because it means that the better part of his case can accrue on my side to. Pro has to respond to this, otherwise, he loses this debate wholeheartedly.

Framework:

Pro had two direct attacks to my framework, which will be responded to in turn.

(a) That it's not mutually exclusive

My response here is that petitioning can only truly reap its benefits in a world without jury nullification. But firstly, a little bit about petitioning, and the wide gap between that and jury nullification. A petition, on its base level, requires at least a 100,000 signatures within thirty days of formulation to even be considered by the government[1]. This means that for a petition to actually take effect, it has to tackle an impending legal issue that troubles society, and it has to have enough research and background data to catch the attention of people, and lots of people have to agree with the proposal for it to be taken into courts, compared to the twelve people sitting on a jury who think a certain law is unjust, or is misapplied. Obviously, the former is preferable. Also, another key difference here is that a petitions an actual representation of the views of society, because a lot of people sign it, and, out of that 100,000 people, there are bound to be a few who actually have basic knowledge about whether the proposal actually deals with oppressive laws, and not just any laws, so a petition is also ground in actual societal problems, unlike jury nullification, where laws are ignored on the whims of the jury. Having recognized this, let's move on to why petitioning works better without jury nullification. The reasoning here is simple. A world where jury nullification is accepted perpetuates the notion that any law, as long as it's thought of as unjust, is unjust. This means that there is an influx of technical and mechanistic petitions, crowding out room for the true, meaningful petitions. Simply put, there are a lot more meaningless petitions on Pro's side, so the important ones get crowded out. 

(b) That it takes a long time

It's quite hypocritical for Pro to accuse me of not providing evidence of petitioning not taking long, while Pro fails to provide evidence on why petitioning takes long. Since both sides have not produced evidence, let's reason this out. Firstly, let's acknowledge that a government wants to stay in power for as long as it can. This is a fairly obvious premise. This means that a government will want to to appease its people, and the most basic way of doing so is to respond when a large part of society comes knocking on their door, telling them there's a problem with the system. This means that the government has to respond to that, and respond to it quickly, because the longer it takes, the more disgruntled society gets. This means that a government, in its own self-interest, has to respond to a petition that society puts forth, and has to respond to it quickly. This is the simple syllogism that Pro has to respond to, because if he doesn't, I take this clash.

Lastly, quickly, on Pro's rhetoric about how petitioning cannot save the unjustly convicted. In response o this, Pro himself acknowledges that the truly unjustly convicted can be acquitted on wither side, so this is a problem that has a solution on my side. These were the major attacks on my framework. The rest are mechanistic problems, which will have no significance if I win the rest of this debate.

Substantive arguments:

(1) Hindering the CJS

(a) Retribution and justice

Pro's main response to this argument was to miss the crux of it entirely, and talk about how my side victimizes the unjustly convicted. Two things to note here. Firstly, on the crux of my argument. In this argument, I talked about the actual criminals that are let loose on Pro's side. I talked about the murderer who was set free because the jury thought death row was too harsh. I talked about such criminals, that were let off with no punishment on Pro's side. To this, we heard resounding silence. But even if Pro wants to talk about the thief who stole 120$, ignoring Pro's concession that these thieves will be let free on my side too, doesn't Pro believe that these thieves should receive some form of punishment? Doesn't Pro believe that they should be told that what they did was wrong? I believe that if a person commits an act that is ethically wrong, he should be punished. Also, obviously, a thief who stole 120$ is not going to be punished to the extent that a thief who stole 120,000$ is. I can obviously support proportional punishment on my side, but Pro has to support no punishment whatsoever on their side. Pro has to support the fact that a person who has done something wrong can be let off scot free, without any direct punishment. This is morally and ethically abhorrent, and Pro has to justify this.

But the second big claim that came in response to this argument was that a retributive model of justice is not one that should be supported. Again, two things to note here. Firstly, my model is not not outright retributive, as Pro claims. It's balanced on three key pillars - retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence, no of which can exist on Pro's side. It's unfair for Pro to strawman my model. But secondly, Pro has to have told us why retribution was outright bad in all circumstances, which he's failed to do. The only thing that Pro gave us was some weird rhetoric on how victims forgiving their attackers gives them power over them. This is kind of a flawed argument, because society approves of retribution, which is why we don't see the government or the CJS receiving backlash for it. Despite what people say on the outside, on the inside, everybody has an innate feeling of wanting to see their attackers punished for what they've done. Everybody wants to see someone who has done something wrong to receive the punishment that they deserve. That's why the concept of retribution exists. Pro needed to attack the core of my argument, he has failed to do so.

(b) Rehabilitation

Its kind of funny that Pro's only response to this argument was to talk about people like Rosa Parks and MLK jr., because there's two things to note here. Firstly, these are the kind of laws that are barely existent in today's progressive society. Secondly, Pro himself specifies that this debate was about the misapplication of just laws, not about unjust laws, so it's unfair for Pro to use this as a response to this argument. But crucially, like the previous argument, Pro has completely missed the crux of this argument. Pro has failed to see that whether a person stole 120$ or 120,000$, he deserves to be told that what he did was wrong, and he deserves to be taught never to do it again. This is a benefit that a petty thief can never accrue on Pro's side, because since Pro is indifferent to the fact that he committed a crime, he can take to the streets again, and commit that same crime again, since nobody ever told him what he did was wrong.

But Pro's last claim about this argument was that jury nullification only happens when jurors feel sympathetic towards unjustly convicted or unfairly treated defendants. But, as Pro concedes in this very same claim, this can happen on my side too. So Pro's response is moot insofar as he has completely missed the crux of this argument, and claims a benefit to these people that in reality, can happen on both sides. Simply put, this argument has not been responded to.

(2) Crime rates and recidivism

Before I get into the depth of this argument, note that it is entirely speculative, since jury nullification is not all that common now. Pro cannot expect me to provide evidence to back up a speculative argument. But, on to Pro's other areas of contention.

(a) Insecurity and stigmatization

Note that other than calling my argument on insecurity 'fear-mongering', Pro has done nothing much to respond to it. What are the impacts of this argument? This argument states that since people are let back onto the streets again, people are scared. Since a murderer is let back onto the streets as a result of the jury nullifying death row, those affected by that murderer are scared. They are terrified that he will come back to haunt them, and they feel betrayed by their own government, who has done nothing to punish their attacker. The same can be said in the case of a thief, a burglar, or any other small-time crook. Ultimately, these people feel insecure on Pro's side, when they see these criminals back on the streets again. This is an actual impact on Pro's side, and has not been responded to.

But secondly, on my argument on stigmatization. Note that this argument was about the fact that when society looks upon these crooks, rhetoric is, they got out easy. Rhetoric is, they didn't get what they deserve. That's why these criminals are denied admissions to colleges, and are denied jobs, because people are angry that they've not been disciplined by thee CJS, and they're also scared that because of this, these people might do the same thing again. Again, Pro strawmanned this argument by saying there will be more people labelled as 'convicts' on my side, so the impacts are worse for these people. Firstly, society generally accepts criminals back into society, whether at a slow rate, or at a fast rate. What people don't accept are people who haven't been punished for their wrongdoings, people who haven't been disciplined. Secondly, this misses my argument altogether, that these people are not accepted because they've not been punished. This argument too, has not been responded to by Pro.

(b) Drug usage:

Pro had two responses to this argument. Firstly, that Pro's side reduces recidivism, and secondly, that laxer drug policies don't necessarily lead to increased addiction. On the first idea, Pro had a weird syllogism, which goes as follows. drug prohibition creates high levels of crime; jury nullification fights against oppressive drug laws; this prevents recidivism. Two things to note here. One, Pro hasn't provided any logical links to these three unrelated strands. Pro has given us not reason why statement one is connected to statement two, and statement two is connected to statement three, therefore, ,this line of reasoning fundamentally does not make sense. This was quite odd coming out from Pro. But two, drugs are presumably going to be prohibited on both sides. Pro has given us no framework as to legalizing drugs, and summary is too late to do so. Therefore, even if this syllogism were to make sense, it would apply to either side, since unjustly convicted victims of overly oppressive drugs laws can be acquitted by a jury regardless of jury nullification. But on the second idea. Pro uses the cherry-picked example of marijuana to respond to this argument. The problem with that is, many states were on the fence about the legalization of marijuana, because of its various health benefits. Therefore, many people used marijuana regardless of its legality. The same cannot be said for more addictive drugs, like cocaine, which have worse withdrawal symptoms[2]. Pro's side is essentially a haven for drugs like cocaine, which are already popular among teens. Pro's side produces a mass influx of these drugs. Pro cannot simply deny this by talking about marijuana.

(3) Racial discrimination

Pro's first response to this argument was that it was non-unique, but I've already dealt with that in the previous rounds, so simply cross- apply those responses here.  But more importantly, pro completely dropped my analysis on African-Americans getting on a jury in the first place, and since Pro's key response to this argument is predicated on these people being on juries, his main response to this argument falls. But even if we accept that African Americans are accepted as jurors, the status quo proves that these few people cannot stop, or even affect discrimination. The status quo shows us that there are 4.1 African-Americans arrested for  every 1 white person[3]. It is far too idealistic for Pro to assume that African-American jurors can be uniquely empowered to reverse this discrimination, because if African-American jurors cannot prevent innocent or unjustly convicted African-American from being arrested, who's to say that they can somehow magically convince a jury to nullify a certain law, thus acquitting their fellow African-Americans? This is a fundamental question that Pro needs to ask himself before posting a completely ignorant response to my argument. Apart from this, I've already shown you how jury nullification can be a uniquely racist tool, something else that Pro has not responded to. In the end, this, like most of my other arguments, has not been responded to at all by Pro.

Vote Con

Sources:

[1] https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/about

[2] https://www.quora.com/Which-is-more-addictive-cocaine-or-marijuana-Why-Which-one-has-worse-withdrawals

[3] https://www.npr.org/2017/09/27/551864016/fewer-youths-incarcerated-but-gap-between-blacks-and-whites-worsens

Sorry for not including the source for there being only twenty unjust laws in this decade, the claim that I made in the previous round. It must have slipped my mind.

Anyway, here it is: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/state-laws-held-unconstitutional.html (start counting only from 2010 onwards)

Con accuses me of having an unclear position. In fact, my position has never been unclear: whenever an unjust law or an unjust misapplication of law comes before a jury, the jury ought to have the option of nullifying. I am, and have consistently been, talking about both unjust laws and unjust applications of laws. Con is simply trying to manufacture a lack of clarity where none exists.

Next, regarding juries acquitting sympathetic defendants and how that supposedly renders my case moot, I have three responses.

Con only address two of my four attacks against his framework. I will touch on Con's drops in a moment, but first I'll respond to those arguments he does make.

Con originally claimed that his advocacy was mutually exclusive to mine. He is no longer making that argument; instead, he is now saying that implementing both advocacies simultaneously would render them less effective. Con therefore drops that his advocacy is not mutually exclusive to mine. Extend this as unrebutted. Remember: I advocate for doing both jury nullification and Con's plan, so I can get all of Con's benefits plus the benefits of jury nullification.

Con accuses me of having an unclear advocacy, when his own advocacy is unclear. In his case, there is no mention of petitioning whatsoever. Instead, he talked about lobbying, which, in the American political context, as a different meaning than simply petitioning. Either way, however, Con's argument here is going to fail.

On the question of efficacy, Con claims that jury nullification will crowd out petitioning and lobbying because "A world where jury nullification is accepted perpetuates the notion that any law, as long as it's thought of as unjust, is unjust." Firstly, this makes no sense. Like, on a literal level, what even is this argument trying to say? It seems like Con is claiming that jury nullification leads to perceptions of injustice creating the perception that the perception of injustice is injustice. Not only is that logic highly tortured (and is thus extremely ambiguous/unclear), but perceptions of injustice, whether in the jury or in the public (as with petitioning), always lead to the conclusion that the injustice is, in fact, unjust. It's also entirely unclear how Con moves from the above claim to the claim that the first claim leads to "influx of technical and mechanistic petitions." Con's argument is gobbledygook disguised as reason.

Secondly, the status quo proves that jury nullification is not crowding out petitions. Jury nullification is legal in the status quo [1, 2]. Petitioning is still extremely common and popular in the US, as websites like Change.org demonstrate. [3, 4, 5] Clearly, therefore, jury nullification and petitioning can exist together and still remain useful tools for addressing issues.

Con claims that petitioning has several benefits: that it reflects the views of society, that petitions have research to persuade people, and that petitions are always tackling impending legal issues. None of these claims is correct.

Firstly, petitions reflect the views of the signatories, not society as a whole. If I got 100,000 racists to sign a petition calling for the extermination of all black people, my petition, though signed by 100,000 people, would not be (and I am quoting Con) an "actual representation of the views of society." Secondly, just scanning through the first group of petitions on Change.org, I find no cited research, but, rather, an abundance of anecdotal evidence and appeals to emotion. Where is the evidence from Con that petitions are usually or always well-researched? There is none. Petitioners often write about issues in which they believe, but that doesn't mean that they are supported by evidence. If Alex Jones wrote a petition calling for the government to look into whether a race of extraterrestrial aliens was controlling key members of Congress, I don't think he'd have much evidence on his side to legitimate his petition. I do, however, think that with his following, he could get 100,000 signatures on that petition. Thirdly, petitions are not always tackling real or serious legal issues. Consider that a petition to begin constructing a Death Star recently gathered enough signatures to be submitted to the White House for consideration. And that isn't the only odd petition to have accumulated thousands of signatures. "And the petition to deport British-born CNN host Piers Morgan. And the entreaty to designate and protect the Sasquatch as an indigenous species. And the appeal to nationalize the Twinkie. The 'We the People' site has received, the White House says, 141,310 petitions over the course of its young existence. And many of those have been, effectively, hoaxes--elaborate yet low-investment jokes played by citizens rising up, coming together, and exercising their constitutional right to troll." [6] Making the White House respond to junk like this is wasting government time and money.

Con made the assertion that petitions work quickly to affect change. It's his burden to show that. If he has no sources or evidence to support his claim, then there is literally no reason to believe it. Moreover, making a quick response to a petition is not the same as taking action based on a petition. The government could respond with agreement, and then take no action to implement the petition's idea. Con needs to show not only a fast response time, but a fast implementation time, in order for his argument to have any weight.

The evidence shows that petitions are often unanswered or are answered only after lengthy waits. [7] "None of the Trump-era petitions have been given a response...Under...Obama...petitions that challenged the administration went years without answer while goofy, softball or more politically convenient ones got a response." [8]

Con drops two of my arguments, which show that (a) even where lobbying does cause the repeal of an unjust law, people convicted for breaking that unjust law will remain felons and will remain incarcerated because their actions were illegal at the time they took them, and (b) even with lobbying, unjust laws will always come to pass, so keeping jury nullification is vital as a secondary check in the event that lobbying cannot prevent the passage of an unjust law. Extend these argument as unrebutted.

On drug use and recidivism, the argument being made by my source is that drug prohibition (much like alcohol prohibition) increases crime. By weakening that prohibition through nullification, jury nullification can reduce crime. If juries in Denver, for instance, refused to convict people for selling pot, pot sales could be conducted in the open and legitimate business people could engage in that commerce, helping to crowd out criminals. 

I am certainly not in favor of criminalizing most currently-illegal drugs, including marijuana. I am required to support jury nullification; nothing about that precludes me from also arguing that drugs should be decriminalized, and fiating that in my world.

Overview: 
The biggest gap in Pro’s case thus far was that I prioritize arrest based on evidence, while Pro prioritizes it based on the internal convictions of the jury. This was the horrendous gap that plagued Pro’s case throughout this debate, and, please note, has not been responded to, or even addressed, throughout this debate. Failing to address this fatal flaw in Pro’s case is what loses him this debate. Also, as a side note, please note that contrary to Pro’s vivid imagination, I have, in fact, responded to most, if not all, of his case. Pro has mislead you to believe that I haven’t done so. I’ll prove that I have through the course of this round.
Framework:
Pro’s main response to my mootness argument towards his framework was that it cuts both ways. Here’s the thing – it does not. All I said was that juries can acquit truly unjustly convicted criminals. I never said that I would allow juries to acquit sympathetic defendants. I can set up regulations on juries acquitting criminals for crimes they’ve actually committed – that’s something Pro can’t do. This means on my side of the house, that thief who stole 120$ will still be arrested. Therefore, all my arguments against Pro’s system still stand. Also, this effectively takes out Pro’s third attack on my framework, because manufacturing doubt to acquit an unjustly convicted person is definitely justifiable. My response to Pro’s second attack will segue into my later responses.
(a)    Mutual exclusivity:
Pro has completely ignored the reasoning I’ve pushed to you through this line of analysis. He has completely ignored the fact that while some petitions might be of an unserious nature, many of them are in fact genuine complaints to the government, and that jury nullification dilutes this utilitarian nature of patents. That’s why, for petitions to work to their fullest extent, jury nullification cannot exist. That is mutual exclusivity. This characterization has been completely dropped by Pro, so extend it as unrebutted.
 
(1)    Efficacy
My argument here was the same one that I made to you in response to Pro’s case, back in round two, that juries might not always be the best judge of whether a law is unjust or not. I told you that the simple fact that a jury this a law is unconstitutional does not make that law unconstitutional, because juries do not always have knowledge about the legal framework. It’s honestly not that hard to understand. This material, again, has not been touched by Pro.
 
(2)    On petitioning
Pro’s main argument here was that petitions themselves are a very inherently flawed system. One question to ask here. Why does Pro support petitioning? If Pro were to follow the analysis that he has presented to us, why does he support petitioning, instead of a world with jury nullification as the only check in the system? The answer is simple. Pro recognizes the unique benefits that petitioning poses to society. Pro recognizes that even if they can sometimes be of a trolling nature, they are only worsened when jury nullification is only thrown into the mix, as can be seen in his lack of response to my first strand on mutual exclusivity. But now, on this whole argument of the views of signatories. Firstly, racist, ridiculous, or emotion-based petitions are clearly not going to be responded by the government. It’s unfair for Pro to claim this as a disadvantage on my side because these are the kinds of petitions that are going to get no response whatsoever. Moreover, no government money or resources are going to be wasted on these ridiculous petitions, it’s outrageous for Pro to assert this. And, also, presumably, it’s much easier, in Pro’s world for a group of twelve racist jurors to let a white man walk free, regardless of whether he commits a crime, than for one racist to go out and find 99,999 other racists to sign a petition. The impacts of this is much worse on Pro’ side, because it involves actual, just laws being overturned. So if Pro wants to talk about racism, it’s much worse on his side. This, again was analysis presented to you by me in round two of this debate, which has not been responded to by Pro thus far.
(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
I did in fact respond to Pro’s third attack on my framework, directly after I responded to his second attack. I’ll quote it right here – “Lastly, quickly, on Pro's rhetoric about how petitioning cannot save the unjustly convicted. In response o this, Pro himself acknowledges that the truly unjustly convicted can be acquitted on either side, so this is a problem that has a solution on my side.” Either Pro is intentionally lying to you, or he cannot think of a good enough response to this. Either way, my response to this attack still stand. On Pro’s last attack, I’ve already addressed it elsewhere in my case, by saying that juries are not necessarily the best judges of whether law is constitutional or not. It was Pro’s burden to do this, and apart from providing flourish and rhetoric about high school math, he has failed to provide us with solid analysis.
 
Substantive Arguments:
(1)    Retribution and justice
 
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