Jump to content
goodatthis

LD NOV-DEC Topic Discussion

Recommended Posts

Resolved: In the United States criminal justice system, jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice.

 

Personally, I think it's really bad and there's no good ground, especially on neg, as well as jury nullification being super ambiguous since there's a bunch of different types of it.

 

​But what are your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What topic did they choose this over?

 

Anyways: I think this topic is not good for neg ground the fact that perceived injustice seems like it would be very easy for the aff to shift out of. Also, perceived injustice seems to be arbitrary and subjective- what qualifies and what doesn't? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What topic did they choose this over?

 

Anyways: I think this topic is not good for neg ground the fact that perceived injustice seems like it would be very easy for the aff to shift out of. Also, perceived injustice seems to be arbitrary and subjective- what qualifies and what doesn't? 

Is T a thing in LD? T should probably be a thing in LD.

 

I think the big thing with negative ground is that it opens the floodgate to being co-opted by the racist, homophobic right. Imagine if there was a court case involving some statute related to gay marriage/rights/etc. with a jury full of Kim Davis types. "Perceived injustice" isn't just something that can be used by the left...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is T a thing in LD? T should probably be a thing in LD.

 

I think the big thing with negative ground is that it opens the floodgate to being co-opted by the racist, homophobic right. Imagine if there was a court case involving some statute related to gay marriage/rights/etc. with a jury full of Kim Davis types. "Perceived injustice" isn't just something that can be used by the left...

Snark, you're not thinking creatively enough: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They already did this topic not that long ago.

 

Anyways, I think, if you feel like doing orthodox LD, you can argue on the grounds of republicanism, that everybody is beholden before the law, not what the people perceived as injustice. The entire reason we have courts with juries of our peers is exactly so a small mob can't decide what the law is on a whim. Say that what the aff proposes is direct democracy, which leads to witch hunts and mobs deciding upon themselves that they get to decide and enforce the law, connect that to lynching of blacks who had sex with white women and were killed for it (I.e: To kill a mocking bird), and say aff needs to solve for racism

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue I'm having is with neg ground... I honestly don't see a good way to negate aside from T and possibly PICs. It seems to me that since the wording in the res is "in the face of perceived injustice" that would mean that jury nullification would only apply in the case of finding someone guilty under a law that is perceived to be unjust. And since jurors who are obviously biased and racist/sexist/homophobic/etc probably know they're biased and don't perceive currently just laws to be unjust, it seems to me that the burden of the neg is to prove that unjust laws should stay the way they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue I'm having is with neg ground... I honestly don't see a good way to negate aside from T and possibly PICs. It seems to me that since the wording in the res is "in the face of perceived injustice" that would mean that jury nullification would only apply in the case of finding someone guilty under a law that is perceived to be unjust. And since jurors who are obviously biased and racist/sexist/homophobic/etc probably know they're biased and don't perceive currently just laws to be unjust, it seems to me that the burden of the neg is to prove that unjust laws should stay the way they are.

You fail the ideological Turing Test forever :). Everyone is the hero of their own story, and extremely few people think of themselves as the villain. The jurors who acquitted lynch mobs in the South didn't think of themselves as evil, they thought of themselves as upholding the proper structure of society; they thought it was unjust for a white man to be hanged for killing a black man for looking at a white woman. The same applies to jurors who acquit someone who murders a gay person based on a "gay panic" defense. And what about debatably unjust laws? The vast majority of Americans believe laws against distributing crack are moral and right; should someone who believes those laws are unjust nullify? Hitler and Stalin didn't think they were evil, and neither do jurors who would nullify a just law because they perceive it to be unjust.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You fail the ideological Turing Test forever :). Everyone is the hero of their own story, and extremely few people think of themselves as the villain. The jurors who acquitted lynch mobs in the South didn't think of themselves as evil, they thought of themselves as upholding the proper structure of society; they thought it was unjust for a white man to be hanged for killing a black man for looking at a white woman. The same applies to jurors who acquit someone who murders a gay person based on a "gay panic" defense. And what about debatably unjust laws? The vast majority of Americans believe laws against distributing crack are moral and right; should someone who believes those laws are unjust nullify? Hitler and Stalin didn't think they were evil, and neither do jurors who would nullify a just law because they perceive it to be unjust.

Either way, the large majority of laws that would be nullified would be unjust laws rather than just laws, and even if not, people who don't think of themselves as villains think exactly that- not that they're being good samaritans. They most likely view their decisions as permissible, not as obligatory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, the large majority of laws that would be nullified would be unjust laws rather than just laws, and even if not, people who don't think of themselves as villains think exactly that- not that they're being good samaritans. They most likely view their decisions as permissible, not as obligatory.

 

Warrant? Cite? For either part?

 

"This is probably the first time and this is the first country in which people are being taught to realize that, of all the tasks which we have to face, the noblest and most sacred for mankind is that each racial species must preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it... The greatest revolution which National Socialism has brought about is that it has rent asunder the veil which hid from us the knowledge that all human failures and mistakes are due to the conditions of the time and therefore can be remedied, but that there is one error which cannot be remedied once men have made it, namely the failure to recognize the importance of conserving the blood and the race free from intermixture and thereby the racial aspect and character which are God's gift and God's handiwork. It is not for men to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize the fact that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation... As I look back on the great work that has been done during the past four years you will understand quite well that my first feeling is simply one of thankfulness to our Almighty God for having allowed me to bring this work to success. He has blessed our labors and has enabled our people to come through all the obstacles which encompassed them on their way... Today I must humbly thank Providence, whose grace has enabled me, who was once an unknown soldier in the War, to bring to a successful issue the struggle for the restoration of our honor and rights as a nation." - Hitler, 1937

 

"What would happen if capital succeeded in smashing the Republic of Soviets? There would set in an era of the blackest reaction in all the capitalist and colonial countries, the working class and the oppressed peoples would be seized by the throat, the positions of international communism would be lost." - Stalin, 1926

 

"If the attribute of popular government in peace is virtue, the attribute of popular government in revolution is at one and the same time virtue and terror, virtue without which terror is fatal, terror without which virtue is impotent. The terror is nothing but justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is thus an emanation of virtue." - Robespierre, 1794

 

You make the common misunderstanding of the left--you assume everyone agrees on the facts, and therefore those who disagree with you are evil and know they're evil. But that's not the way the world works. The people can be wrong. Nullifying juries can be wrong. And yes, they do think of themselves as upholding justice.

 

Millions of Americans voting for Trump don't see themselves as selfish or evil racists; they honestly believe that it is morally right that the borders be closed and that the American government should put the interests of Americans first. And statistically, expect about 2 of them on average on each 12 person jury.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warrant: the majority of the country believes racism/sexism/homophobia to be morally wrong. I'm pretty sure that's a relatively indisputable fact. There may be a lot of racists out there, but they're still a minority. This is why there will always be more nullification of unjust laws than just laws. Plus, I'm also pretty sure that juries go through screening processes which would most likely take out a known white supremacist if a black man is on trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warrant: the majority of the country believes racism/sexism/homophobia to be morally wrong. I'm pretty sure that's a relatively indisputable fact. There may be a lot of racists out there, but they're still a minority. This is why there will always be more nullification of unjust laws than just laws. Plus, I'm also pretty sure that juries go through screening processes which would most likely take out a known white supremacist if a black man is on trial.

The majority of the country, if polled, will say that racism, sexism, and homophobia are wrong. But:

 

* The country polled about even on whether the Trayvon Martin verdict was correct: http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/22/big-racial-divide-over-zimmerman-verdict/

 

* By a ratio of 3:1, white Americans believe Darren Wilson's shooting of Michael Brown was justified: http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/08/sharp-racial-divisions-in-reactions-to-brown-garner-decisions/

 

* 10 years ago, supporting same-sex marriage was a relatively small minority position, and Bush gained a significant number of votes supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

 

If you define these positions as racist or homophobic, well, those people will be on juries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking I might argue moral conventionalism - if there are no objective standards for morality beyond those set by societal consensus, it seems possible to argue that individuals can't or shouldn't determine justice for themselves. Maybe a jury can nullify in certain cases, but without the pretext that they have a moral right or obligation to do so? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...