Affirmative

I affirm the resolution, In the United States the principle of Jury Nullification is a just
check on government. Before continuing I would like to provide a definition of Jury
Nullification. Hreno Travis explains, “Jury nullification, in its simplest definition, occurs when a jury
returns a not-guilty verdict for a defendant it believes to be guilty of the crime charged.”
Because this resolution is questioning whether Jury Nullification is a just check on government,
the value Justice. Justice is definded as giving each their due. In the United States, Jury
Nullification allows the jury to uphold justice by deciding whether the defendant has truly
committed an act of injustice by allowing the jury to question the law that the defendant
supposedly violated and decide whether or not it is just. This check is needed to ensure that the
government is being just towards the American people in return for the people following just
law. Thus, upholding the Social Contract is the value criterion of this resolution. The social
contract is the agreement made by the people to give up certain sovereignty to their government
in exchange for protection of their rights and the maintaining of justice through law. Jean-
Jacques Rousseau states, “An intermediate body is set up between the subjects and the Sovereign
to secure the mutual correspondence charged, with the execution of the laws and maintenance of
liberty, both civil and political.” Without Jury nullification, the subjects of a state would be prone
to right violation because they could be charged guilty of an unjust law and as such the
government would not be upholding it’s side of the social contract. As an Observation:
American Citizens acts as both the subjects and the governing body in the Social Contract.
Because this resolution is considering only the United States, and due to the fact that American
Government is a democracy run by the interests of the people, the people have a role in
governmental sovereignty because as the actor of the ruling force and the subjects being ruled
must have the ability to uphold and check sovereign authority.

Contention 1: Jury Nullification allows the people to uphold sovereign authority. Van Dyke
argues, Scheflin, Alan and Van Dyke, Jon. (Professor of Law, University of Santa Clara; Professor of Law, University of Hawaii). “Jury
Nullification: The Contours of a Controversy.” Law and Contemporary Problems, 43(4), 1980. p. 113. “The right of the jury to
nullify applications of law in a particular case can also be supported on political grounds as an
essential aspect of democratic self government. It serves to remind governments and legal
professionals that the people are sovereign. It serves to remind the community that
protection of its liberty and freedom rests in the hands of the people.” Thus, Jury
Nullification allows the people to uphold their sovereign authority in American Democracy.
Second, Jury Nullification allows for direct democracy that is not commonly seen in our
representative democracy.(The Co-Intelligence Institute) Direct Democracy is the ability of citizens to
make policy and law decisions in person. This means that the people are directly utilizing their
sovereign authority over law. Dwyer argues, “With about 1.5 million Americans serving in
courtrooms each year, the trial jury achieves a unique dispersal of governmental power. Far
from being obsolete, [I]t gains importance as elected officials become more distant from those they
represent. When the United States government began, there was one congressman for
every 38,000 constituents. Due to population growth, there now is one for every 647,000[.], a
seventeen-fold increase in remoteness; [S]tate legislatures have seen a similar change. The jury, by
placing decisions directly in the hands of the people, bridges the widening gap between
citizens and their government.” This form of direct democracy provides everyone within the
given community an equal and fair chance to be selected upon the Jury. As a democratic nation it
is important that the people have a direct ability to check the law that is being forced upon them
and ensure that the government is not violating the social contract.

Contention 2: Jury nullification can end unjust application of law. Van Dyke offers a key
example,
Scheflin, Alan and Van Dyke, Jon. (Professor of Law, University of Santa Clara; Professor of Law, University of Hawaii). “Jury Nullification:
The Contours of a Controversy.” Law and Contemporary Problems, 43(4), 1980. p. 73
“At best, a succession of jury verdicts can convince a prosecutor not to pursue certain cases or a legislature to rewrite or repeal a certain law.
Consider, for example, the conduct of juries in some San Francisco cases several years ago.
The San Francisco Police Department escalated its anti-prostitution efforts by decoying
female police officers in "clinging" outfits on city street corners. These women were "wired
for sound" and were authorized to arrest men proposing illicit sex with them. In the first
court cases about this practice, juries acquitted after little deliberation. Interviews with the jurors
revealed that the acquittals were based on a belief that the police practice constituted entrapment. The practice soon stopped. The
jury once again made law. The police tried to enforce the prostitution laws and the prosecutor was compelled to bring the cases. The judges
would not dismiss the charges. It
was left to the jury to bring the community conscience to bear on the
issue. The jury verdicts were not necessarily votes in favor of prostitution, but they did
express[ed] popular concern over police practices and victimless crimes.” Thus, jury
nullification can put an end to unjust practices and effectively change the way in which law is
carried out. Next, Jury Nullification is essential to upholding the principle law that is being
applied incorrectly. Van Dyke states, “Jury nullification, rather than destroying the law, is
necessary to protect it. As Roscoe Pound pointed out long ago, the law on the books is often quite
different from the law in practice. "Jury lawlessness," he said, "is the great corrective of law
in its actual administration."' When the law becomes too rigid, too mechanical, or too far
behind public opinion, the jury may make minor adjustments to bring it back into conformity
with justice. Van showed how Jury Nullification actually helps to re-implement justice into old
laws and ensure that they are being applied properly. So by correcting unjust application in law,
Jury Nullification is upholding the social contract by ensuring that just laws are being placed
upon the people.

Contention 3: Jury Nullification is necessary to ensure fairness to a defendant on trial. The

framers of the Constitution intended for the use of Jury Nullification to counter potentially
corrupt higher power. Justice White’s opinion for Duncan v. Louisiana states “The framers of
the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary but insisted upon further
protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a
jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous
prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge.” Justice White is showing
why a jury is critical for the protection of the defendant. Jury Nullification provides the jury with
an option to overrule a law that violates the defendant’s rights and ensure the defendant can be
protected. Fairness in law and to the defendant during a trial is critical for the government to
uphold their side of the social contract by protecting the defendant’s rights.

Thus, I affirm.