DISTRICTS AFF - DISTRICTS AFF I affirm Resolved In the...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
DISTRICTS AFF. I affirm, Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on the government For clarification of the resolution, I offer the following observation: The phrase “in the united states” confines the debate to the US, thus any arguments for other countries are extratopical. The word “a” means that the affirmative does not have to prove that jury nullification is the best or only check on the government just that is a check on the government. According to Douglas Linder , a professor at Missouri-Kansas University, jury nullification Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate that are charged with deciding. Since the resolution questions the justness of jury nullification, the value for today’s round is justice. Justice is defined as “giving each their due.” The value criterion for the round is preserving the democratic process for three reasons. First, as per the definition of justice, each person must have his or her due voice in the political arena . Second, the democratic process creates social stability because in a democratic system, citizens cohesively establish a framework of laws that will generally be followed since the laws have come from what the people want. Third, democracy prevents oppression from the government because democracy requires that the interest of the general public form the basis for all political decisions. My first contention is that the the jury acts as a key safety valve in the democratic process and is necessary check on legislative and executive power. William Goodloe , former justice of the Supreme Court, Explains that: “JURY NULLIFICATION: EMPOWERING THE JURY AS THE FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT,” accessed 24 August 2007, http:// www.fija.org/docout.php?id=113&filename= jurynull.doc&filesize=76288
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Most of the historical discussion of jury nullification has been in the context of criminal cases. That is because the policy behind jury nullification is the protection of civil liberties and in the past the contest between the individual and government took place largely in the arena of the criminal trial. Though in the early years of the federal courts it was not unusual even in civil cases to instruct the jurors that they were to judge the law. See Georgia v. Brailsford , 3 Dallas 1, 4 (U.S. 1794), Van Horne v. Dorrance , 2 Dallas 304, 307, 315 (C.C.D. Pa. 1795), and Bingham v. Cabbot , 3 Dallas 19, 28, 33 (U.S. 1795).
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.

This note was uploaded on 01/09/2011 for the course US 100 taught by Professor Trelawney during the Spring '10 term at Colby-Sawyer.

Page1 / 5

DISTRICTS AFF - DISTRICTS AFF I affirm Resolved In the...

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