First contention: JN can be as harmful as it is helpful in certain situations – See my previous post (Dec. 1st). As such, the harm is significant enough to reject JN.
Second contention: JN is irrelevant because juries are essentially irrelevant. The vast majority of people in jail are there because of plea bargains and never see a jury. If the use of juries is so rare, they don’t particularly matter and JN becomes an academic question.
Set up the second contention by asking the Aff, in CX, how many people in jail or prison had jury trials. (Chances are they won’t have any idea.)
The articles you need to make the second contention work are below. I’ve been thinking about this one for a while; we did a PF topic on plea bargaining back in 2011. The first article gave me some clues about where to look for the numbers I needed. The next two are prison population figures. The final one contains the plea bargain numbers, a few paragraphs in.
I don’t have any LDers to use this, and it might be different enough to trip up even a good affirmative if no one is expecting such an argument this late in the topic’s life span.
If anyone has come across this already, let me know. I’d really like to think that someone else thought of this one, too. Surely I can’t be the only one who made the plea bargain – jury nullification connection.