Arguments Against Jury Nullification

656 Words3 Pages

Aff Case

“There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” It is because I agree with the words of Charles de Montesquieu that I affirm the resolution: in the United States criminal justice system, jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice.
My value in this round is justice. Justice is defined as giving people their due. Justice within the context of today’s round can be seen as exclusively retributive as we are discussing a just response towards a transgression of American law. The central question of the resolution is whether a just society ought to implement jury nullification as a legitimate check towards the exercise of governmental power thus …show more content…

Perceive, from Oxford, means: To regard as. Injustice, from Webster, means: a situation in which the rights of a person or a group of people are ignored. Ought, from Oxford, means: duty or correctness. This entails a moral obligation, thus a just society is morally obligated to allow jury …show more content…

Police officers, too, “take into consideration factors such as whether” the behavior of the accused “was merely a technical violation or whether other circumstances not formally recognized by the law justified or excused a defendant’s actions.” When police officers so use their judgement to apply and interpret the law, it is not considered anarchy or lead “to the end of the rule of law.” When prosecutors consider factors that are not relevant to a strict application of the law to decide whether or not to file charges, they are using their judgement. This happens almost every day, and this has not led to the end of governmental power. Thus, jury nullification has an inherent purpose: “to weed out inappropriate prosecutions where police and prosecutors failed to do

More about Arguments Against Jury Nullification