



































[2] Con R1 source 1



Overview:The biggest gap in Pro’s case thus far was that I prioritize arrest based on evidence, while Pro prioritizes it based on the internal convictions of the jury. This was the horrendous gap that plagued Pro’s case throughout this debate, and, please note, has not been responded to, or even addressed, throughout this debate. Failing to address this fatal flaw in Pro’s case is what loses him this debate. Also, as a side note, please note that contrary to Pro’s vivid imagination, I have, in fact, responded to most, if not all, of his case. Pro has mislead you to believe that I haven’t done so. I’ll prove that I have through the course of this round.Framework:Pro’s main response to my mootness argument towards his framework was that it cuts both ways. Here’s the thing – it does not. All I said was that juries can acquit truly unjustly convicted criminals. I never said that I would allow juries to acquit sympathetic defendants. I can set up regulations on juries acquitting criminals for crimes they’ve actually committed – that’s something Pro can’t do. This means on my side of the house, that thief who stole 120$ will still be arrested. Therefore, all my arguments against Pro’s system still stand. Also, this effectively takes out Pro’s third attack on my framework, because manufacturing doubt to acquit an unjustly convicted person is definitely justifiable. My response to Pro’s second attack will segue into my later responses.(a) Mutual exclusivity:Pro has completely ignored the reasoning I’ve pushed to you through this line of analysis. He has completely ignored the fact that while some petitions might be of an unserious nature, many of them are in fact genuine complaints to the government, and that jury nullification dilutes this utilitarian nature of patents. That’s why, for petitions to work to their fullest extent, jury nullification cannot exist. That is mutual exclusivity. This characterization has been completely dropped by Pro, so extend it as unrebutted.(1) EfficacyMy argument here was the same one that I made to you in response to Pro’s case, back in round two, that juries might not always be the best judge of whether a law is unjust or not. I told you that the simple fact that a jury this a law is unconstitutional does not make that law unconstitutional, because juries do not always have knowledge about the legal framework. It’s honestly not that hard to understand. This material, again, has not been touched by Pro.(2) On petitioningPro’s main argument here was that petitions themselves are a very inherently flawed system. One question to ask here. Why does Pro support petitioning? If Pro were to follow the analysis that he has presented to us, why does he support petitioning, instead of a world with jury nullification as the only check in the system? The answer is simple. Pro recognizes the unique benefits that petitioning poses to society. Pro recognizes that even if they can sometimes be of a trolling nature, they are only worsened when jury nullification is only thrown into the mix, as can be seen in his lack of response to my first strand on mutual exclusivity. But now, on this whole argument of the views of signatories. Firstly, racist, ridiculous, or emotion-based petitions are clearly not going to be responded by the government. It’s unfair for Pro to claim this as a disadvantage on my side because these are the kinds of petitions that are going to get no response whatsoever. Moreover, no government money or resources are going to be wasted on these ridiculous petitions, it’s outrageous for Pro to assert this. And, also, presumably, it’s much easier, in Pro’s world for a group of twelve racist jurors to let a white man walk free, regardless of whether he commits a crime, than for one racist to go out and find 99,999 other racists to sign a petition. The impacts of this is much worse on Pro’ side, because it involves actual, just laws being overturned. So if Pro wants to talk about racism, it’s much worse on his side. This, again was analysis presented to you by me in round two of this debate, which has not been responded to by Pro thus far.(b) It takes a long timeAgain, Pro did not respond to the nuance of this analysis, because what I really said was that in a world without jury nullification, petitions are naturally going to be of a better quality. What does this mean? This means that in a world without jury nullification, inherently good petitions will rise over the din of the trolls, and these are likely to be the petitions that will be approved of most by the people, and therefore will be responded to by the government quickly. Pro concedes this in the lack of response to my syllogism. And by responding quickly, obviously the government will have to take action quickly, because the more the government delays, the more the government loses popularity with the people. In theory, pro hasn’t responded to this argument. The Trump administration obviously cannot be used as a response, because it is quickly turning out to be quite a different presidency than most, to put it lightly. It’s unfair for Pro to his Trump as an example. In terms of Obama, the administration dd in fact respond and implement a few petitions, most of the rest of them were trolls.(c) DropsI did in fact respond to Pro’s third attack on my framework, directly after I responded to his second attack. I’ll quote it right here – “Lastly, quickly, on Pro's rhetoric about how petitioning cannot save the unjustly convicted. In response o this, Pro himself acknowledges that the truly unjustly convicted can be acquitted on either side, so this is a problem that has a solution on my side.” Either Pro is intentionally lying to you, or he cannot think of a good enough response to this. Either way, my response to this attack still stand. On Pro’s last attack, I’ve already addressed it elsewhere in my case, by saying that juries are not necessarily the best judges of whether law is constitutional or not. It was Pro’s burden to do this, and apart from providing flourish and rhetoric about high school math, he has failed to provide us with solid analysis.Substantive Arguments:(1) Retribution and justicePro ultimately never ended up responding to wither one of my contentions, that victims deserve retribution, and that offenders deserve retribution. Both of these stand as unrebutted. But what did Pro say? Pro said that sometimes, victims do not deserve punishment. To this, I told you many things. I told you that anyone who has done something wrong has to face punishment for their actions. I also told you in the previous round that I can support proportional punishment. No response to this whatsoever. In Pro’s world, that man who stole 120$ will be allowed to walk free, time and time again, never being told what he did was wrong. And, in Pro’s world, there are bound to be many people like that man who can go on stealing small amounts over and over again, while not being punished for it, because let’s face it. The man who stole 120$ stole thrice. He was given two warnings, yet he chose to continue to steal. There will definitely be a huge influx of these cases on Pro’s side, because people are never told what is right and what is wrong. That was the fundamental principle that Pro had to defend, but never did. As for the three attacks that Pro put forth, I’ve already addressed the first two elsewhere in my case. I already stressed, throughout the third round, that unjustly convicted people can still be acquitted on my side. Pro simply ignores my responses and calls these attacks unrebutted. In response to Pro’s third attack, obviously this argument talks about crimes which do have victims. I thought that didn’t need clarification, but apparently Pro misunderstands my arguments to such an extent that every single word needs to be spelled out for him.Pro introduced three more points of contention, namely, (a) forgiveness is an essential element of protecting victims of injustice, (b) forgiveness is an essential element of vindicating victims of injustice, and (c) the restorative model of justice also encourages criminals to take responsibility for their wrongdoings. I’ve already responded to literally all these attacks in the previous round Simply cross-apply my responses here.(2) Crime rates and recidivismPro’s main point of contention with the argument of insecurity is that the impacts are going to be small. This is a hugely flawed argument because it ignores the fact that by Pro’s own characterization, a lot of petty thieves are going to be let off as a result of jury nullification, and this makes more people scared of the fact that there is a much higher chance that their money is going to be stolen. Pro did not contest this. Therefore, this argument has hugely tangible impacts.On stigmatization, Pro argued that I was shifting the goal posts. This is a blatant lie. From round one, my argument was that these people are going to be punished less severely, and so society will take it upon themselves to punish them. Pro has chosen to completely ignore this, while instead arguing that more people will be labelled as ‘convicts’ on my side, so it’s worse for them. This argument is refuted by simple logic, because of the fact that excluding people nullified by the jury, both sides will have roughly the same numbers of convicts. But on Pro’s side, the people whom are nullified will in fact be treated worse by society, as conceded by Pro in his lack of response to this substantive point. So, on average, more people are treated worse by society in Pro’s world, because while on both sides, convicts are treated the same, on Pro’s side, those who are nullified by the jury are much worse off. Even if all of the people who are nullified on Pro’s side are convicts on my side they are treated better on my side because society would universally prefer a punished criminal to a criminal who was let off with no punishment. This was the analysis that Pro had to respond to, and has failed to do.On drugs:Again, Pro has failed to address the key issue here, namely that much more addictive drugs which are strongly prohibited in society today will face a huge influx, especially among teens, whom, presumably, are going to be the ones that are not convicted. This is particularly harmful because not only do people who do drugs will have free access to feed their addiction, people who are opposed to drugs, and people who do not have an opinion will be forced into drugs because of things like peer pressure. Note that this was analysis I provided to you in round two. This will ultimately create a drug-infested society, the alternative that Pro has failed to defend throughout his response to this argument. Pro, rather, argues for a world with no drug restrictions. This is extremely problematic, because even if we were to buy that teens somehow benefit from this, which they do not, as I’ve told you in my above analysis, this means that adults have free access to drugs, and this can create whole new circles of drug hierarchies among adults, ultimately leading to the same outcome, an influx of harmful and addictive drugs. It was quite telling when Pro shied away from responding to this, because it meant that Pro had failed to defend an undeniable outcome of his world.(3) MinoritiesThis was probably the most impactful argument on this debate, and it was devastating for Pro not to provide a sufficient response to this. Pro tells you that somehow this is a unique tool to fight racism. When I question this, Pro says that a jury’s vote has to be unanimous to reach a conclusion. How come this ‘unanimous’ vote has not stopped 4.1 African-Americans being arrested for every 1 white person[1]? How come this ‘unanimous’ vote has had absolutely no bearing on the substantially high arrest rates of innocent African-Americans? It was not enough for Pro to say that the vote had to be unanimous. Pro had to tell us why, even if we were to believe that African-Americans are regularly impaneled on juries, these African-Americans could change anything. The status quo is proof that they can’t. In contrast, I gave you a much more reasonable argument. I told you that white people would get an unfair advantage over African-Americans, insofar as a racist jury lets them walk free, but they convict an African-American, when both defendants are guilty of the same crime. This was what Pro had to respond to, this was what Pro has failed to do for us.Pro’s response to the fact that African-Americans are not impaneled on juries came after two rounds of thought, but even so, it was quite a flimsy response at best. Pro told you that there were laws preventing discrimination in the impaneling of juries. I’m sorry to inform Pro, but they don’t actually change anything. African-Americans still are systematically denied jury duty[2]. Since Pro’s response was predicated on the idea that African-Americans were in fact impaneled on juries, and my response takes out that premise, Pro’s response collapses.And on the last issue of this argument. I’ve already told you countless times throughout this debate why jury nullification is a uniquely racist tool. Pro has chosen simply to drop this analysis and mislead you, but that won’t work.Case gaps:There were three main gaps in Pro’s case that were never really addresses by Pro, and automatically lose him this debate.(1) Jurors need not necessarily be capable of truly judging a law, and whether it is necessary or not(2) Truly unjustly convicted people can still be acquitted on my side(3) In Pro’s world, justice is meted out based on the whims of the jurors, rather than actual evidence and truthVote Con.Sources:[1] Con R3 source 3