• Aaron

    The neg has the ground of bias nullification, here is a link you should follow. It talks about black men refusing to convict other black men that they knew were guilty, because those men were black. The neg can state that because of biases shown in this link, injustice may be perceved where there is none. http://bigfatgenius.com/2220%20Fall%202010/Weinsten%20-%20Considering%20Jury%20Nullification.pdf

  • great choice

    So is the neg just supposed to argue that unjust laws should stay the way they are? Fantastic

  • Bill

    The interpretation that legislating greater authority for juries is effects topical, would render the topic itself almost meaningless (or at the very least – lack persuasive elements for most judges).
    “Micro-Political Action” could be a more direct approach to encouraging a judge to take action in the face of injustice and to encourage future juries (real) and increase awareness (somewhat real).
    I find that asking myself, “Is there a debatable interpretation here?” and then backing that with a few ideas/cards from the literature would prepare me to answer “T” (and it’s variations) effectively.

  • confused

    who is the actor supposed to be?

    • Michael O’Krent

      Juries 🙂 nobody else can jury nullify. A legislative plan is effects T because the topic says “used,” and nobody else can “use” jury null (even if they permit/encourage it)