Contestation AC

Contestation AC - Contestation AC I affirm Bartol and...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Contestation AC I affirm, Bartol and Bartol write define jnull, “Jury nullification is the power of a criminal trial jury to disregard the evidence or judicial instructions because they believe the law is wrong, nonsensical, or misapplied to a particular case.” 1 The resolution questions “a” legitimate check, not “the” legitimate check thus alternatives that solve the AC do not negate insofar as jury nullification could be used in that situation. For instance, we wouldn’t say legislatures were unnecessary even if the President could make the correct choice on every decision. If jury nullification is ever needed you affirm else there would be no check on government in that instance, allowing for infinite abuse. Indicts to jurors in general are non-unique because they still exist in a normal jury trial. Further, the negative must show inherent reasons why jury nullification is unjust. In addition, proving that an actor is illegitimate does not mean that any given action is illegitimate. IE, people would say that pedophiles are bad, but if a pedophile saves someone we would not label that action as unjust, as such indicts to jury nullification must pertain to the action, not the actor. I value governmental legitimacy. Olli Lagerpetz writes, “The idea of political legitimacy implies that the individual, in some sense, sees the decisions made by the State (or another relevant political body) as expressions of her own will. That is, in some sense they express concerns shared by her even in the cases where specific decisions go against her personal views”. Legitimacy must not exist in a vacuum since conceptions of what constitutes legitimacy are evaluated contextually. For instance, while North Korean communists may consider democracy illegitimate, most Americans do not. American policies are centered on contestation due to a history of representative democracy and because citizens legitimize it by participating in elections and recourse to the government. Contextual evaluation must entail contestation because people being able to influence that evaluation is key to it existing in the first place. Allowing citizens to influence policies precedes any notion of a 1 Psychology and Law: Theory, Research, and Application, Third edition, Curt R. Bartol & Anne. M. Bartol
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Contestation AC legitimate government since otherwise they would never form a state in the first place. Thus, the standard is maximizing avenues for contestation , which precedes other criteria since it allows individuals to democratically alter the standard they use to evaluate governmental legitimacy if they grow dissatisfied with policies. “Avenues” is plural thus designating quantity, so qualitative diminishing of avenues is irrelevant as long as the ability to check the government is maximized. My contention is that jury nullification opens up a needed avenue for contestation by
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 7

Contestation AC - Contestation AC I affirm Bartol and...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online