{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


Consistent_Apllication_NC - Consistent Application NC...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Consistent Application NC Because the law must be applied consistently, I negate the resolution: Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government. I value a justice as prescribed by the resolution. Justice is defined as giving each their due.As per the definition of justice, the best way to give each their due is consistent application of the law. Thus, the value criterion is the consistent application of the law because 1) democracy is rooted in the idea that everyone has an equal voice in the government and so the law must be applied consistently in order to prevent arbitrary distinctions between people 2) law is meaningless unless it can provide a coherent set of guidelines and so consistency is necessary for any form of government 3) insofar as the government is created by the people in order to administer the law fairly and effectively, the law must be applied consistently or the very basis for the government is undermined My first contention is that jury nullification prevents consistent application of the law. Subpoint A) jury nullification grants juries the illegitimate right to administer the law, thus destroying its efficacy. Richard St. John writes, 1 Second, when legislators grant juries a right to nullify, they distort the shape of government. Legislatures, which have been delegated their powers by the people as a whole , may certainly return some of that power to the people. However, when [but the] legislatures [are not entitled to] grant that power not to the entire people (say, by enacting a referendum process), but to a group of twelve randomly selected citizens, they in effect create a rotating oligarchy . The jury's power is considerably more troubling than that of the conventional commission or regulatory agency, for such jurors are given the power, on a case-by-case basis, selectively to nullify constitutional provisions or repeal the statutory law without open discussion. Commissions and agencies, by contrast, exercise their rulemaking functions under close oversight and in the light of day. Since the power to interpret and apply the law is given to twelve people who are randomly selected, the administration of the law is inconsistent because of the different views of each group brought in to deliberate each case, which creates varying legal standards.
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}