Arguments Against Jury Nullification

I stand firmly AGAINST the resolution which states that jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice.

(Optional)

I would like to offer another another definition for the following term from The Merriam-Webster Dictionary,

Jury nullification:

The acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact My value for this debate is fairness because it is such a large part of our legal system. My value criterion is The Rule of Law, which states that a government should be ran by the law, not arbitrary decisions, because it is the best tool with which to measure if my value is being upheld in this debate.

I have three contentions, and each of which upholds my value:

Contention 1: Jury

His jury was unaware of their ability to nullify a law. Another man in Louisiana is accused of the exact same thing, but this time, his jury is aware that they are able to nullify a law because it is unjust. The man in Oregon would be much more likely to be found guilty than the man in Louisiana simply because of the fact that the jurors weren’t aware of their abilities. In no way is a man being found guilty of a crime another man is found innocent for fair. It’s right there in the United States Constitution, “All men are created equal,” so they would both deserve the right to have the same verdict, not have the results be skewed simply based on the fact that one jury didn’t know their abilities.

-Therefore, because not all cases would have the same verdicts based solely on the fact that one jury may be aware of something the other isn’t, jury nullification shouldn’t be used.

This ties into my value of fairness because if jury nullification isn’t used, fairness and equality in more cases would ensue.

Contention 3: Some people may have unfair advantages in a