AT Racism Juries acquit racist defendants of civil rights violations legal solutions like jury – nullification negate established legislation in favor of communal values, causes retrenchment of racist ideology in law Brooks 04 Thom, prof of law and @ of Jury Res Publica 10, gov’t Durham, “A Defence Nullification,” 2004, [, , ] Of course, not all concerns that critics highlight about jury trials can be acceptable, in particular regarding racist juries.56 For example, and more convictions for alleged violations of civil rights legislation were commonly in the American South,57 often met by jury nullification. Perhaps the judicial process is not best suited for the task of combating segregation: when rulings began to disallow segregation, many of them were unenforceable. N. W. Barber says: would have been better effected through statutory and executive action, which could ‘desegregation have provided a comprehensive and enforceable solution to the problem; such a solution, however, was not immediately One of forthcoming’.58 the purpose of civil rights rulings and legislation to ‘was the problems, according to Peter Bachrach, was that change, by use of the law, ingrained behavior patterns of the community, rather than to reflect which is the objective of the jury trial attitudes and mores of the If – – community’.59 the jury is to give expression to community standards that are racist, then jury verdicts may well be racially prejudiced, which is clearly unacceptable. Moreover, many have noted the phenomenon of African-American juries voting to acquit defendants in light of damning evidence to the contrary, most notably the acquittal of former Washington DC Mayor Marion Barry, who was caught on FBI videotape smoking cocaine.60 In these instances, Paul Butler argues, jury nullification is a useful tool to address in particular racial discrimination. and political reasons, the black ‘antisocial conduct’, ‘for pragmatic commu-nity is better off when some nonviolent lawbreakers remain in the community rather than go to prison’.61
AT Racism Juries acquit racist defendants of civil rights violations – legal solutions like jury nullification negate established legislation in favor of communal values, causes retrenchment of racist ideology in law Brooks 04 Thom, prof of law and gov’t @ Durham, “A Defence of Jury Nullification,” Res Publica 10, 2004, [, , ] Of course, not all concerns that critics highlight about jury trials can be acceptable, in particular regarding racist juries.56 For example, and more commonly in the American South,57 convictions for alleged violations of civil rights legislation were often met by jury nullification. Perhaps the judicial process is not best suited for the task of combating segregation: when rulings began to disallow segregation, many of them were unenforceable. N. W. Barber says: ‘desegregation would have been better effected through statutory and executive action, which could have provided a comprehensive and enforceable solution to the problem; such a solution, however, was not immediately forthcoming’.58 One of the problems, according to Peter Bachrach, was that the purpose of civil rights rulings and legislation ‘was to change, by use of the law, ingrained behavior patterns of the community, rather than to reflect – which is the objective of the jury trial – attitudes and mores of the community’.59 If the jury is to give expression to community standards that are racist, then jury verdicts may well be racially prejudiced, which is clearly unacceptable. Moreover, many have noted the phenomenon of African-American juries voting to acquit defendants in light of damning evidence to the contrary, most notably the acquittal of former Washington DC Mayor Marion Barry, who was caught on FBI videotape smoking cocaine.60 In these instances, Paul Butler argues, jury nullification is a useful tool to address ‘antisocial conduct’, in particular racial discrimination. ‘for pragmatic and political reasons, the black commu-nity is better off when some nonviolent lawbreakers remain in the community rather than go to prison’.61
Premier-Debate-Brief-ND15.docx