_id
stringlengths 23
47
| text
stringlengths 70
6.67k
|
|---|---|
test-philosophy-ippelhbcp-con01a | “Benefits” of capital punishment apply universally The same arguments about capital punishment apply in Africa - deterrence value, potential cost savings, and principles of justice. [1] This could be more acute, with growing issues of international crime, such as drugs, growing in Africa [2] . Africa has had many issues of conflict and crimes against humanity – these are the kind of crimes that many who are less enthusiastic about capital punishment would still support it for. [1] See “This House Supports the Death Penalty” - [2] See Cockayne, James, “Africa and the War on Drugs: the West African cocaine trade is not just business as usual”, African Arguments, 2012, |
test-philosophy-ippelhbcp-con04b | Practicality is not an excuse - capital punishment is still a human rights violation, whatever the circumstances. The Libya prison escape, of course, was an unusual case - it was during a civil war. |
test-law-ilppppghb-pro02b | The wrongs of colonial powers are by now far in the past. The great majority of people living in former colonies, or indigenous peoples in countries like the US or Australia, have no experience of that time and have not been directly affected by the injustices of colonialism. Making sure that everyone in society has equal rights and opportunities is nothing to do with self-determination. improve this Self-determination offers a way to resolve otherwise intractable disputes. |
test-law-ilppppghb-pro01a | Self-determination is necessary to protect minority cultures. Many states in the modern world do not respect the rights of minorities or actively seek to dilute and subsume them into the majority culture. Others offer limited protections to minority peoples but stop short of allowing them to choose their own futures. We need to reassert their right to self-determination to ensure that these minority cultures are not lost. Failure to defend the principle of self-determination now will effectively close off the choices of future generations. For example, Australian government policy for many decades was to ignore Aboriginal rights, denying them full citizenship1 and removing children from their homes and relocating them with white families (the so-called "stolen generation"2). As a result many indigenous Australians no longer have a strong link to their native cultures and languages. The same is arguably true in places like Tibet, where traditional culture is being diluted over time through the deliberate policy of the Chinese government. 1 See "Collaborating for Indigenous Rights", National Museum of Australia 2 "Bringing Them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families", Australia Human Rights Commission, April 1997. |
test-law-ilppppghb-pro01b | Forcible assimilation, as in the Australian case cited, is clearly wrong, but that does not mean that we should abandon the goal of integrating minorities into society without forfeiting their cultural, racial or religious differences. Placing undue importance on the right to self-determination may make such situations worse. Furthermore, in some situations, governments manipulate the idea of self-determination to suit their own ends. Many governments have pursued a policy of sending settlers from the majority race or religion into minority-dominated areas and then point at the difficulty of allowing such areas to implement political reforms or secede without massive social upheaval. One example of this is Tibet, where the Chinese government has strongly encouraged ethnic Han Chinese settlers to relocate to that province with the aim of gradually reducing the impact and strength of Tibetan demands for self-government1. 1 Hessler, Peter. "Tibet through Chinese eyes", The Atlantic, February 1999. |
test-law-ilppppghb-pro03a | Self-determination embodies the fundamental right of peoples to decide their own futures. Modern liberal democracy is founded on the idea that people should be free to decide their own leaders and their own futures, but not all states give their minority peoples such a right. However, this is a right guaranteed under international law. The International Court of Justice has held that this right applies not just to national governments but also people1. The two important United Nations studies on the right to self-determination set out factors of a people that give rise to possession of right to self-determination: a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory, a distinct culture, and a will and capability to regain self-governance2. If these criteria are in place, such peoples should have the right to determine their own constitutional and political arrangements. 1 Western Sahara Case, 1975 International Court of Justice 12, 31. 2Critescu, A. and GrosEspiell, H. "The Right to Self-determination", United Nations, 1980 (not online, but widely cited |
test-law-ilppppghb-con03b | In many cass, it is not self-determination that causes tensions, but the lack of opportunity for minorities to choose their own future. Conflicts and civil wars generally take place not because people want self-determination but because they are not allowed it. In the Yugoslav example, if the Milosevic government had recognised the right of the country's component ethnic groups to self-determination, rather than seeking forcibly to suppress it, then there would have been no armed conflict. In contrast, by the time Montenegro sought to secede from Serbia, the now-democratic Serb government accepted their right to do so, and the split was carried out without bloodshed1. 1 "Montenegro declares independence", BBC News, 4 June 2006. |
test-law-ilppppghb-con01b | Minorities are often economically disadvantaged and politically marginalised; formal guarantees of equal rights, even where they exist, do not necessarily translate into real opportunities for citizens. And respect for individual rights, as important as it is, does not address issues of concern to the entire community, such as the teaching of minority languages in school, provision of facilities for religious worship, and so on. The best way to improve the situation of these minority populations is by respecting and promoting their right to self-determination. If not, they will remain second-class citizens in their own countries. |
test-law-ilppppghb-con03a | Self-determination can destabilise nation states, sometimes with very destructive consequences. If we accept self-determination as such an important principle that it trumps all others, this will encourage people to self-identify along nationalistic, racial or religious lines, at a time in human development when we are moving away from racist and nationalist ideologies. Nationalism is about difference, which flies in the face of the idea of the global citizen. Taken to its extremes, it encourages increased conflict, separatist terrorism. For example, the ethnic conflicts that led to the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s were fuelled by nationalist ideologies and the stressing of the differences between ethnic and religious groups that made up that country. |
test-law-ilppppghb-con01a | What matters are individual democratic rights, not necessarily collective self-determination. Simply being a minority in a nation should not be enough to claim the right to self-determination. As long as people have democratic rights, such as the right to protest, to lobby and to vote , they enjoy the same rights and protections as those of the majority community in that country; there should be no obligation on the state to go further in granting them self-determination. For example, during the Franco era in Spain, minority nationalities such as Basques and Catalans were for a long time discriminated against and excluded from real political power, and backed political parties that explicitly represented their community. As their position in society has improved, however, so the hold of identity-based politics has loosened, and the pull of secession has weakened1. 1 Macko, Kalyna: "The Effect of Franco in the Basque Nation", Salve Regina University, July 2011. |
test-law-ilppppghb-con02b | Many minorities live in states where international human rights law is applied inconsistently or indeed not at all. It may not make a life-changing difference to a French-speaking Belgian which side of the France – Belgium border they happen to be born, but to a Palestinian in the West Bank or a Tamil in Sri Lanka, their right to self-determination is absolutely crucial, because other rights may well be denied to them through direct or indirect state discrimination. It is relatively easy for states to explain away individual human rights breaches, since these occur in all nations from time to time. It is much harder for them to justify denying an entire people their right to determine their own futures. |
test-law-lgplhbssbco-pro02b | This is only an objection to particular cases of suicide; it cannot be made into a general case because some suicides really do only affect the individual – those in which there is no extended family or friendship group. And that an act is, on occasion, selfish is not sufficient grounds to prohibit it. Indeed, ostracising one’s friends or walking out on one’s family can upset people but we are hardly likely to deny people the liberty to make such individual, private life choices. Nobody has the right to force people to live in circumstances that cause them unhappiness. Suicide should be viewed in exactly the same way. Moreover it should be remembered that an attempt to prosecute survivors or in some way to punish relatives of those who succeed is clearly not going to help leaving grieving relatives in a worse position. [1] [1] Holt, ‘When Suicide was illegal’, 2011 |
test-law-lgplhbssbco-pro01a | Suicide is a waste of life Suicide is a waste of life. It is an immoral act that ignores the sacrosanct nature of human life – something that is universally considered to be the case as shown by being something nearly all religions consider to be the case. [1] Failure to criminalize such a flagrant violation of the sanctity of human life condemns any society as irreligious and immoral. Nowadays we hear everyone talking about human rights; we hear precious little about human obligations. If we believe in the moral worth of human rights we do so because we think that human life is a wonderful thing and something with which we should not interfere. Whether the interference is by others or by ourselves, any action that denigrates human life is morally wrong for precisely the reason that we support human rights. We have an obligation to preserve all life, including our own. [1] Perrett, Roy Wo., ‘Buddhism, euthanasia and the sanctity of life’, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 22, No. 5, October 1996, |
test-law-lgplhbssbco-pro01b | The question whether or not human life is "sacred" should not intrude on the issue of suicide legislation because no clear proof is possible one way or the other. We respect human rights because we value the liberty and autonomy of individuals; we want to be able to make our own decisions and we likewise affirm the right of others to make their own decisions. The free, autonomous decision to take one’s own life should be respected as a legitimate exercise of one’s individual liberty. Human liberty is sacrosanct and should only be limited where clear social harm is caused; suicide affects only the individual and so it should be permitted |
test-law-lgplhbssbco-pro04b | Suicide is different from abortion or cloning or euthanasia in the important respect that it involves only one individual and his choice about the way he lives (and by extension, when he dies). So we can deny any link to these other phenomena. In addition, we can defend suicide on the same basis as one might plausibly and robustly defend all the others: on the basis of the value of individual autonomy. Human dignity is a value that is inextricably linked to the free exercise of individual autonomy; it is the absence of autonomy and the domination of another man over the slave that makes slavery a clear violation of basic human dignity. |
test-law-lgplhbssbco-con03b | The fact of suffering is what makes it impossible to consider suicide a legitimate choice. Someone under the duress of intense pain and/or discomfort is not going to be able to make a fully voluntary and informed choice to end their life. |
test-law-lgplhbssbco-con03a | We are all dying Death is an inevitable fact of life. We will all die. Suicide is therefore not a matter of choosing between life and death per se, but of choosing the time and manner of death one wishes. We would all prefer a painless death over a slow and agonising one, and it is better to be able to prepare oneself and if possible anyone else who will be affected, so why should the difference between the two be a matter of luck and not one of choice? |
test-law-lgplhbssbco-con01a | This is not the role of the criminal law Criminal legislation is not the vehicle for society’s pronouncements on questions of how one should live one’s life. It instead involves the entirely practical exercise of ensuring that individuals are able to live freely and enjoy their freedom without fear of external interferences like theft, violence or murder. Criminal legislation should guarantee a safe space for autonomous individual action - like suicide. |
test-law-lgplhbssbco-con02b | The right to life is a positive protection against the state extinguishing that right and is limited largely to that context. A person can no more choose to give up their right to life than they can choose to give up their right to freedom from slavery. |
test-law-ralhrilglv-pro01b | Kenya is an advanced state with a functioning system of the rule of law – except for those in power. With modern video technology, Ruto and Kenyatta could oversee the governance of the country from The Hague, or, alternatively, participate in the trial through videolink. Even so, Al-Shabab are unlikely to be defeatable within the terms of Kenyatta and Ruto. Such a delay would only be useful if there was government reform or fresh elections necessary, rather than anti-terrorist action. |
test-law-ralhrilglv-con02a | Kenya needs the trial now Without justice, there cannot be peace. Following the total failure of the Kenyan justice system to take action, exemplified by the Parliament’s complete and utter rejection of the Waki Commission, the ICC, which Kenya voluntarily signed up to, has to step in. Ethnic violence still goes on in Kenya [1] , and if there is impunity in this case, no message will be sent out: justice must be done and seen to be done to prevent similar abuses and prevent justice being taken outside of the courts. [1] Wachira, Muchemi, “Cattle raids and tribal rivalries to blame for perennial conflict”, Daily Nation, November 18 2012, |
test-law-ralhrilglv-con04a | Just hold the trial by videolink It has already been agreed that defendants can appear at the court by videolink [1] for parts of the trial. This is not problematic, unless the defendants want to start representing themselves. Bearing in mind that Ruto and Kenyatta have been continuing to co-operate with the trial throughout the process, there is no reason to think that they would flee the international criminal court. Either way, if they change their mind, they could simply not travel to The Hague for the trial. [1] Corder, Mike, “International court changes trial attendance rule”, The Wichita Eagle, November 28th 2013, |
test-law-thgglcplgphw-pro02b | Simply arguing that because something is a 'tradition' that it should be legalized is a nonsensical argument. Traditions need to stand on their own merits, beyond the simple fact that people have done it in the past, as anyone would recognise that a great many things done in the past were not desirable, and therefore longevity does not equal desirability. Moreover, substances have never been legalized simply because some religions place spiritual connotations upon their use. For example, many members of the Rastafarian Movement and some Muslim Sufi groups claim that using cannabis has spiritual value and is important to understanding mystic truths, but cannabis has not been legalized as a result. [1] This is because, on balance, the harms of legalization outweigh our perception of its claimed benefits, and the same is true of the coca leaf. It is also important to note that the prized position of coca in Andean culture owes much to the lucrative nature of the international cocaine market, and thus this cultural value cannot be entirely 'unbundled' from cocaine use in the West. [2] [1] Ernest, Abel. “A Comprehensive Guide to Cannabis Literature”. Greenwood Press. 1979.; [2] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. |
test-law-thgglcplgphw-pro02a | Coca production can be justified on cultural grounds Coca chewing is hugely prevalent amongst the peoples of the Andes, and their social relationship with it is akin to that of ours with coffee in Western nations. This is why so many nations in this region cannot and simply will not ever conform to any international ban that calls for phasing it out. The custom of chewing coca leaves may date back as far as 3000 BC in the region, and so hugely pre-dates cocaine consumption, and thus shouldn't be bundled with it or banned on the grounds that cocaine is banned. [1] Coca has also been a vital part of the religious traditions of the Andean peoples from the pre-Inca period through to the present, being used 'to communicate with the supernatural world and obtain its protection, especially with offerings to the Pachamama, the personification and spiritual form of the earth.' [2] All South American countries have signed several declarations by the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) that acknowledged that the chewing of coca leaves is an ancestral cultural expression that should be respected by the international community. [3] The international discouragement of the practice of chewing coca leaves and the prohibition on its use by Andeans when they travel or reside abroad can thus be seen as a violation of their indigenous religious and traditional rights, and therefore is not acceptable on a moral level. [1] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009. [2] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. [3] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011. |
test-law-thgglcplgphw-pro03b | Medical uses of the coca leaf are already legal under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. [1] . The coca plant has also never been proven to be a better ingredient in these varied domestic products than other plants, and other plants may even perform even better as ingredients. [2] There is therefore no compelling reason to believe that its global cultivation would result in any meaningful economic boost or better products on the market. Saving lives from being ruined by cocaine is more important than nay minor boost we might get from other coca products. [1] United Nations. “Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961”. United Nations. 1961, amended 1972. [2] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. |
test-law-thgglcplgphw-pro01b | Compulsive Coca chewing may compromise oral health. The wider cultivation of coca plants may make cocaine itself more readily available, and cocaine has clear health risks to its consumption. This debate must be seen in terms of the wider health risks and problems that actually occur if cultivation is legalized, not just a narrow understanding of the health risks in a theoretical vacuum. |
test-law-thgglcplgphw-con03b | The burden of evidence lies on the side trying to prove its harm, not on the side asserting that it is not harmful, and so the lack of categorical proof of its harm is in itself an argument for legalizing its cultivation and chewing. If proof of health risks arise then they can be addressed, but until then the ban is inappropriate and should be lifted. |
test-law-thgglcplgphw-con01b | If coca cultivation were legalized, there would probably be mechanisms and policies to allow the plant and its derivatives to co-exist without this necessarily signifying an increase in harmful consumption, and to limit it being grown in the huge amounts needed for cocaine production. [1] The legalizing of coca cultivation for non-cocaine use could also undermine the supply basis of cocaine itself, as farmer would shift their production of coca from cocaine-purposed coca to open market coca production, as legal production would be much more secure from government action. Therefore legalizing coca production could actually help make cocaine less readily available. [1] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006. |
test-law-thgglcplgphw-con02a | Legalising coca production would undemine the wider war on the drugs economy The UN International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) said in 2011 that exceptions for Bolivia would undermine international narcotics control efforts: “[Allowing coca] would undermine the integrity of the global drug control system, undoing the good work of governments over many years.” [1] A US official said in January of 2011: “there is evidence to suggest that a substantial percentage” of the increased coca production in Bolivia over the past several years, registered in U.N. surveys, “has indeed gone into the network and the marketplace for cocaine.” [2] These examples thus show that legalizing coca cultivation would undermine the wider war on drugs, because it shifts the policy away from one of eradicating crops which could be turned into narcotics and instead turns towards making them acceptable on the global market. It encourages countries to take eradication efforts less seriously, and seemingly undermines the commitment of the international community to the war on drugs, once it gives in on this narcotic. This will make not just cocaine but many other drugs more widely available, leading to even more ruined lives through drug abuse. [1] M&C News. “Bolivia undermines global anti-drug efforts, UN warns”. M&C News. Jul 5, 2011. [2] Associated Press. “U.S. to fight Bolivia on allowing coca-leaf chewing”. The Portland Press Herald. January 19 2011. |
test-law-thgglcplgphw-con01a | Unrestricted Coca production would increase the availability of cocaine Cocaine can be readily extracted from the coca leaf. In 1992 the World Health Organization’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) undertook a ‘prereview’ of coca leaf at its 28th meeting. The 28th ECDD report concluded that, “the coca leaf is appropriately scheduled [as a narcotic] under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, since cocaine is readily extractable from the leaf.” [1] The active ingredient in coca leaf is the same as in cocaine, just more concentrated. Because the raw material of coca and its more potent relative cocaine are so closely aligned, it is impossible to disassociate the two, and so any attempt to consider cocaine a narcotic and stop its spread must also forbid coca. Globally, cocaine is also most produced where coca is legal, and this is a clear correlation. In Bolivia, coca eradication efforts in the 1980s and 90s helped reduce cocaine production. However, as Evo Morales took power and legalized coca production and consumption, cocaine production has shot up, despite his efforts to fight cocaine production. [2] Thus legalizing coca makes it easier for cocaine producers to operate. Legalizing the cultivation of the coca leaf would therefore simply make cocaine more readily available, thus increasing all the harms that come with widespread cocaine use in society. [1] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011. [2] Forero, Juan. “Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca”. New York Times. February 12, 2006. |
test-law-thgglcplgphw-con02b | With no other narcotic drug are the components parts of that drug banned in of themselves. For example, the raw component parts of crystal meth are not banned. These components are a variety of household cleaning compounds. [1] It is wrong therefore to suggest that it is impossible to have an effective anti-narcotics effort unless the component parts are banned, as this exact approach is successful taken in other areas. [1] Associated Press. “New 'shake-and-bake' method for making crystal meth gets around drug laws but is no less dangerous”. NYDaily News. Tuesday, August 25th 2009. |
test-law-cplgpshwdp-pro02a | Juries need to have all the information possible in order to reach a fair verdict. It is nonsensical to withhold evidence from a jury that might be necessary for them to reach an accurate verdict. Just because their verdict might be more prone to conviction rather than acquittal does not necessarily mean that this is an unfair or even inaccurate conclusion; given that violent offenders are likely to re-offend [1] , it may illuminate the truth rather than confuse it. Jurors should be allowed to weigh the relevance of previous convictions and compare them with the accusations of the trail at hand. A criminal justice system which currently relies on the ability of the jury to make a decision [2] cannot legitimately choose to withhold evidence from them without innately biasing the trial itself. As the UK Government’s White Paper states, ‘we want less evidence to be withheld from the courts, on the principle that relevant evidence should be admissible . . . magistrates, judges and juries have the common sense to evaluate relevant evidence and should be trusted to do so’ [3] . If we cannot trust juries to decide which evidence is relevant to the verdict and which is not, then the entire use of juries in the criminal justice system should be reconsidered. [1] CBC News, ‘Getting out of prison’, March 2008. [2] Direct Gov, ‘Jury service – what happens in court and after the trial’, 10 October 2011. [3] CPS, ‘Justice for all’, The Stationary Office, July 2002. |
test-law-cplgpshwdp-pro05a | Occasional disclosure of convictions leads to an inconsistent justice system. At present in Britain, some previous convictions may be disclosed if they bear a striking resemblance to the case at trial, if the defendant falsely claims to be of good character, or if they attack the character of a prosecution witness [1] . However, different judges invariable interpret these criteria in different ways, which leads to a wavering standard of trail where previous convictions may or may not be revealed. It would be much more efficient and transparent to allow this motion and make court procedures more accessible. [1] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003. |
test-law-cplgpshwdp-pro01b | While recidivism is obviously a problem, this motion fails to take into account any situation where an individual has previously committed a crime but is innocent of the crime going to trial. Given that conviction rates soar when previous convictions are disclosed [1] , this motion doesn’t rebalance the justice system to cater for the victims, but risks seriously prejudicing those who are innocent of the crime going to trial. A wrongful conviction is just as bad as a wrongful acquittal; the prejudicial effects on the jury’s ability to make a verdict [2] undermines the objectivity of the justice system, and seriously risks the possibility of a fair trial. [1] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003. [2] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003. |
test-law-cplgpshwdp-pro05b | The more obvious and efficient solution to this problem is to ensure a clearer standard of when previous convictions may or may not be disclosed, so that judges may act by the same standards. There is a simple solution to this particular complication; it would be an overreaction to suddenly change the entire court process by allowing this motion. |
test-law-cplgpshwdp-pro03a | Jurors are already aware of information which might ‘bias’ their verdict. Jurors are frequently affected by media coverage of particular cases, which makes it almost impossible for them to remain impartial in the idealistic way which opposition naively believes possible. This creates a situation where the jury may be more affected by information which they have found out elsewhere – for example on the news or in newspapers – than the information which is presented to them in court. There have been some cases where jurors search the internet to find the backgrounds to their cases, despite the fact that this is not allowed [1] . This evidently reflects that jurors feel that they have not been adequately informed and so seek facts elsewhere. Given that this need has been reflected by the jurors themselves, the court should give jurors all possible information and bring previous convictions into the open to ensure that they can base their verdict on reliable fact presented in court rather than resorting to sensationalist media. [1] Attorney General’s Office, ‘Juror convicted for internet research’, 23 January 2012. |
test-law-cplgpshwdp-pro04a | Defendants who are innocent will be protected This motion could allow innocent defendants to mount a stronger case. This is because, if allowed, the previous convictions of prosecution witnesses would be admitted as evidence. In this case, if a prosecution witness falsely claims good character in opposition to the defendant, any falsity could be more easily seen and weighed by the jury. This solves a problem under that status quo where ‘the threat of introducing his [the defendant’s] previous convictions will frequently inhibit him from introducing character evidence about the prosecution witness’ [1] ; fear that the defendant’s convictions may weigh against them where the prosecution witness remains untouchable creates a discrepancy in the justice system. However, if convictions on both sides were to be revealed anyway, then neither can falsely claim the character of the other and attempt to convince the jury of false information on this front. [1] CPS, ‘Justice for all’, The Stationary Office, July 2002. |
test-law-cplgpshwdp-con04a | Allowing this motion would lead to a miscarriage of justice. This motion removes the incentive for police to conduct vigorous investigations. Given the increasing pressure on policemen and women to gain convictions [1] , this motion will mean that their best chance of obtaining those convictions is simply to accuse those whose backgrounds could feasibly lead a jury to believe that they are not only capable of crime, but have committed the crime in question. Subsequently, the real culprits may be left to go free as suspicion is routinely pointed towards those who already have a criminal record. Given that poor police investigation [2] and poor case preparation by the prosecution [3] are currently a large source of dissatisfaction with the justice system, it is important to prevent either police or the prosecution from becoming dependent on the negative records of the defendants rather than properly fulfilling their roles. [1] Bushywood, ‘CPS - Crown Persecution Service’. [2] The Guardian, ‘The cost of poor policing’. 11 October 2010 [3] Human Rights Watch, ‘Justice at Risk: War Crimes Trials in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia and Montenegro’, 14 October 2004, D1607. |
test-law-cplgpshwdp-con04b | This point places too much importance on the defendant’s history. In any case, records of their previous convictions must be heard alongside of the facts of the primary crime; any history will always be tempered by discussion of the actual crime. Satisfaction from the justice system will be greater if the public are aware that juries are not simply allowing past offenders to walk free; and if police and prosecution forces are found to be failing at their jobs, then this should be separately addressed and regulated. |
test-law-umtlilhotac-pro01b | Court proceedings themselves aren’t, in general, entertaining. Live broadcasts would largely involve lawyers discussing intricate details of issues, including complex points of law. If there was a real prospect of an ICC trial becoming a matter of entertainment, it probably would have occurred with the existing trials. Even high profile court cases will not get large viewing figures – the UK Supreme Court case in to the extradition of Julian Assange only got 14,500 viewers [1] . Existing regulations for the use of Supreme Court footage in the United Kingdom allow excerpts of the footage to be used in news and current affairs programmes, or educational uses, but bars the use of the footage in light entertainment or other programmes. [1] Ministry of Justice, ‘Proposals to allow the broadcasting, filming, and recording of selected court proceedings’, gov.uk, May 2012, at p10 |
test-law-umtlilhotac-con02a | Open justice – crimes with large numbers of victims The principle of open justice, including the right to a public trial [1] , is enshrined in many legal systems. The best show of commitment to open justice is to allow everyone to watch it, the best method of doing so is for the trial to be televised. This is all the more the case when the victims can't all be in court, either because of the numbers or because of the distance. Television coverage will help bring the trial closer to the victims. International criminal trials regularly take place outside the location of the offences, either in The Netherlands such as the ICTY, ICC and Charles Taylor trial, or elsewhere, such as the ICTR sitting in Arusha, Tanzania. It would be helpful in terms of providing closure to the victims, who should be witnessing proceedings. [1] See the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights |
test-law-umtlilhotac-con03a | Broadcasting provides a public record Unlike many other criminal trials, since Nuremberg a key principle of International Criminal Law is that it aims to set a historical record. The events that it deals with are important as they are heinous crimes that change regions forever. A trial helps to get to the bottom of events that happened preventing there being multiple conflicting versions of events. This record also can help to act as a deterrent to others considering similar measures. Broadcasting the trial will bolster this record by providing footage of the trial itself (which may reduce myths about it being unfair, for example) and providing a voice to the victims through their evidence, in their own words, being recorded for posterity and future study. |
test-law-umtlilhotac-con02b | Few people would actually watch the entirety of the trial proceedings, most would probably just see clips of the footage of news reports; television news coverage of criminal trials can already take place without actual footage. While televising trials will engage the victims and their families, televising a criminal trial may inflame tensions as well. During the trial of Saddam Hussein, Hussein made a number of calls to violence during his televised trial. Many of those who are on trial have a significant number of followers (see the widespread support for Uhuru Kenyatta) – television broadcasts would give them a means of communication |
test-law-cplglghwbhwd-pro01a | Individuals Should Not Have the Right to Bear Arms in DC Under the status quo the state exists to protect the security of its citizens. It does so by maintaining a monopoly of violence with the consent of its citizens. US citizens have been allowed to bear small arms as a symbolic representation of their ability to rise up against state oppression should it ever occur. That is, to keep a check and balance upon the monopoly of violence that the state has. It is important to note that the state has the monopoly of violence such that it can protect its citizens in the best possible way. In the same way, the right to bear arms exists such that citizens can protect themselves and prevent harm. This means that should the state visit harm upon the citizens of the state then its right to claim a monopoly on violence is revoked and the citizens can fight against the state. In a similar fashion to the above, should the citizens of the state use their right to bear arms to visit harm upon one another, it seems reasonable that in the same way that the state’s monopoly on violence is revoked, the citizens should have their right to bear arms revoked. Given that this does not occur in every single part of the U.S. it also seems reasonable to isolate the ban to areas where the spirit of the right to bear arms is being significantly violated. In this case the ban is limited to DC however it could potentially extend to other areas in the U.S. which suffer similar problems.2 |
test-law-cplglghwbhwd-pro01b | The issue with Washington DC and certain states in the U.S. is that the police and the state are unable to protect people. The opposition believes that people who visit violence upon one another should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, within certain areas of DC, the state consistently fails to protect its citizens and enforce its monopoly of violence in a just and effective fashion. In doing so the state is failing to uphold its part of its agreement with its citizens. Further, if police in these areas are corrupt in any way, then the state is actively visiting harm upon its citizens. If the state is failing to maintain its monopoly on violence then the citizens of that area have to take over in order to provide for their own security. The citizens of DC have a right to bear arms in order to protect themselves. The failure is thus on the part of the state for deaths in DC. Citizens within the state should not have their rights curtailed for what is essentially a failing of the state.3 |
test-law-cplglghwbhwd-con02b | The right for Americans to bear arms used to be important for symbolic reasons. However, now such a symbol does not serve to act in the same way that it once did. It was once realistic that American citizens would be able to counteract the monopoly of violence that the state has. However, in this age of modern warfare, such power simply does not exist in any real form any more. Weapons as symbols in this way are just symbolic of the loss of power that the citizens of the U.S. have undergone over time and further are symbolic of a fruitless endeavour in resistance of the state through violent means. The fact that the citizens of America feel the need to resort to violence as a symbol for the ability to stand up to the state harms what the state stands up for now, which is change through peaceful and democratic protest. Further, even if the right to bear arms was still symbolic in a positive way, the good feeling such a symbol gives simply does not compare to the number of lives lost to things such as gun violence year on year.11 |
test-law-sdiflhrdffe-pro02b | A democracy’s first duty must always be to the citizens that elect it, not to foreign dissidents. Their duty therefore is to be engaging with these regimes to the benefit of their own citizens; through encouraging trade relations for example. Offering amnesty to individuals oppressive regimes consider to be criminals will serve only to alienate those regimes from the process of negotiation so actually runs counter to the interests of the electorate. Such alienation would result in even more repression, and a greater unwillingness to adopt reforms. If democracies want to promote their mode of government abroad they would be best advised not to pick fights with those they wish to influence. |
test-law-sdiflhrdffe-pro03b | This policy will not be a public statement of anything other than Western attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of others. It is also a powerfully hypocritical message; many democracies have libel laws that prevent libel and misrepresentation and authoritarian states should be allowed to have the same laws which will sometimes impact on bloggers. [1] [1] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013, |
test-law-sdiflhrdffe-pro03a | This offer of amnesty serves as a powerful public statement in favour of free speech and rule of law In offering amnesty Western governments make an exceptionally powerful public statement in the international arena, an area in which they already hold great sway as norm-setters. It is a statement that shows that they will not simply ignore the abuses of power used by repressive regimes to stifle dissent and the voices of reform. [1] Ultimately, the power of oppressors to act with impunity is the product of democracies’ unwillingness to challenge them. Authoritarian regimes often claim to value freedom of the press, for example article 35 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China guarantees it, [2] and this policy challenges them to make their practice more like what they preach. A policy of amnesty for those threatened with the lash of tyranny serves to actively protect those people while at the same time upholding the avowed principles of justice and fairness the West proclaims. This will show that the West does not play favourites or turn a blind eye to these repressions, but is an active player, willing to step in to shield those who share its dreams of a freer world. The international ridicule these policies can generate will serve to shame regimes into relaxing their policies and to embrace at least a road to reform. Nor should it be assumed that this rhetoric will have no real consequences, many authoritarian regimes encourage investment by companies from democratic countries, such investment is less likely when that company’s home state is publically condemning that state by granting amnesties to dissident bloggers. [1] Clinton, H. “Conference on Internet Freedom”. U.S. Department of State, 8 December 2011. [2] Fifth National People’s Congress, “Constitution of the People’s Republic of China”, 4 December 1982, |
test-law-sdiflhrdffe-con03b | People in oppressive regimes are smart enough to know when they are being duped. They will listen if the bloggers have a good point and are being unjustifiably persecuted. In the case of the Japan-China territorial dispute, there is the tangible fact that the islands are being fought over for nationalists to attach to irrespective of ideology. Offering amnesty is simply an offer to rescue people facing imminent unjust punishment. While governments will no doubt seek to paint them as foreign agents, their ideas will be able to continue to battle in the public sphere, rather than be shut off forever with the closing of a prison-cell door. |
test-law-sdiflhrdffe-con01b | All countries, even authoritarian ones, desire to be considered legitimate and valued in the international community. The weight of condemnation that a policy of amnesty creates is one that bears down heavily on repressive regimes and can galvanize them to reform. Furthermore, it is essential that Western governments nurture dissidents and give them shelter so they can continue their mission to attain justice rather than be thrown into jail. |
test-law-sdiflhrdffe-con02a | The liberal democratic paradigm is not the only legitimate model of government, a fact that democracies should accept and embrace Ultimately, states’ laws have to be respected. Liberal democracy has not proven to be the end of history as Fukuyama suggested, but is rather one robust system of government among many. China has become the example of a state-led capitalist model that relies on a covenant with the people fundamentally different from that between democratic governments and their citizens. [1] Chinas ruling communist party has legitimacy as a result of its performance and its role in modernising the country. [2] China’s people have accepted a trade-off; economic growth and prosperity in exchange for their liberties. When dissidents challenge this paradigm, the government becomes aggrieved and seeks to re-establish its power and authority. If the dissidents are breaking that country’s laws then the state has every right to punish them. Singapore similarly has an authoritarian version of democracy that delivers an efficient, peaceful state at the expense of constraints on the ability to criticise the government. [3] This collective model of rights has no inherent value that is lesser to that of the civil liberties-centric model of liberal democracy. In the end, as the geopolitical map becomes complicated with different versions of governance, states must learn to live with one another. The problem of offering amnesty to bloggers is that democracies and the West seek to enforce their paradigm onto that of states that differ. This will engender resentment and conflict. The world economy and social system relies on cooperation, trade, and peace. The difference between systems and cultures should be celebrated rather than simply assuming that there is only one true model and all others are somehow inferior. [1] Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. “Is State Capitalism Winning?”. Project Syndicate. 31 December 2012. [2] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013, [3] Henderson, Drew, “Singapore suppresses dissident” Yale Daily News, 5 November 2010, |
test-law-sdiflhrdffe-con04a | Democracies should be wary of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries Authoritarian countries tend to guard their sovereignty jealously and will not take kindly to what they would consider to be interference in their internal affairs. In many cases this is exactly what the government offering an amnesty would be doing. Should foreign countries really be deciding that the justice system of a country was wrong in this or that case so amnesty should be provided? Where there are legal proceedings against a blogger that end up with the blogger being sent to jail those outside the country may think the sentences unjust but as countries that publically support the rule of law they should accept the result. It may well be the case that sometimes the judicial system has been used to persecute a blogger but it is difficult to see why an outside power with little interest in the case should believe they have the right to provide an alternative verdict through an amnesty. Where a country disapproves of the treatment of an individual this should be done by negotiating with the government in question and providing any alternative evidence they have. Cuba for example has released dissidents before as a result of negotiations with outside actors; the release 80 dissidents for the visit by Pope John Paul II in 1998 being merely the most successful example. [1] [1] Human Rights Watch, “Cuba: Release of Dissidents Still Leaves Scores in Prison”, 8 July 2012, |
test-law-rmelhrilhbiw-con01b | The Palestinians themselves did not enjoy self-rule after 1948 and the blame for the expulsions should not be placed on them but on the Jordanian authorities, and they are the ones who should be obligated to provide compensation if any is due. And the Palestinians played no role in the expulsion of Jews from states like Iraq and Egypt and therefore to impose compensation at their expense is deeply unfair. Furthermore, while many of the settlement may have been built near the sites of abandoned Jewish communities, most have expanded far beyond those locations and the need to provide security for them has led to the confiscation of historically Arab land. |
test-law-rmelhrilhbiw-con02a | Settlements provide economic investment in the Occupied Territories The fundamental fact is that the West Bank, whatever its status, is not an economically viable entity on its own. It produces few goods, while Gaza produces next to none, and independence without a major influx of capital will not change this situation. The best source for a supply of capitol in the region lies in Israel, which has an enormous demand for a low-wage work-force. Millions of Palestinians worked in Israel until after 2000, and with travel into Israel proper restricted, settlement construction and cultivation provide economic development opportunities for the region and create jobs for Palestinians. [1] This is an important prospect when the unemployment figures for the Palestinians are at nearly 30%. [2] Furthermore the very need for such labor is likely to further incentivise Israel to loosen restrictions on Palestinian workers in the West Bank and Gaza. [1] Hass, Amira, ‘Israel to lift restrictions on Palestinian Jordan Valley travel’, Haaretz.com, 26 April 2007, [2] ‘Palestinian unemployment shows gradual decline’, Jmcc, 21 February 2010, |
test-law-rmelhrilhbiw-con02b | It is ironic that when the agricultural basis of the Palestinian economy is being strangled by settlement construction and the seizure of groves involved, that Palestinians should be grateful for the job opportunities provided in low-wage service positions in the Israeli settlements. [1] Furthermore, even if one accepts the economic premises of the government’s argument, one is left with the fact that Israel’s policies are creating a climate of economic dependence that will ensure that any future Palestinian entity is economically and therefore politically dependent on Israel. The Palestinian movement is as much a resistance against colonial exploitation as it is a revolt against a legal denial of independence, and it is unlikely their grievances will be settled when similar arrangements have left Israeli Arabs more alienated from the Jewish state than ever before. [2] [1] Alwazir, Atyaf, ‘Uprooting Olive Trees in Palestine’, American.edu, November 2002, [2] Telhami, Shibley, ‘The 2011 Public Opinion Poll of Jewish and Arab Citizens of Israel’, Brookings, 1 December 2011, |
test-law-cpilhbishioe-pro02a | An ICC enforcement arm would be quicker If international criminals are to be caught it needs to be clear that there is an organisation with the responsibility and authority to catch them. This is especially important when the criminal in question is able to slip across borders to avoid the national authorities in one state as Joseph Kony has done as the ICC would be able to cross borders itself and coordinate the response from multiple countries. The importance of an organisation that is able to catch international criminals can be highlighted by the experience of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia where despite a Memorandum of Understanding relating to the detention of war criminals in Bosnia NATO denied it had the power to make arrests so leading to patrols actively avoiding wanted men to avoid a situation in which they might have to engage in arrests. [1] A lack of clarity over whether an organisation can enforce its warrants for arrest results in arrests not being made. Ultimately the ICTY was successful because this situation was resolved with the creation of multinational police forces backed up with traditional NATO military power if necessary leading to the arrest of 126 individuals. [2] [1] Zhou, Han-Ru, ‘The Enforcement of Arrest Warrants by International Forces From the ICTY to the ICC’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol.4, 2006, pp.202-18, pp214-6 [2] Ibid, p.203 |
test-law-cpilhbishioe-pro04b | Just creating a force to bring suspects to trial would not necessarily be enough to make the ICC a more credible organization. That would have to come through more measures and building multilateral support in areas where situations have been referred to the council. This increase in credibility of the ICC also comes at the expense of the sovereignty of the states that call the ICC force in. Many nations would much prefer the current system where it is clearly solely within their purview to arrest criminals on their soil, creating a competitor with its own police force will be considered by many to be undermining their sovereignty so damaging not improving the chances of a state being willing to involve the ICC. |
test-law-cpilhbishioe-pro04a | An ICC enforcement arm would make the ICC more credible as an organization To its critics, the ICC is an organization that can be mocked with Stalin’s dismissal of the influence of the Pope: “how many divisions does he have?” An ICC capable of arresting its own fugitives would become a more credible organization, not only due to the show of competence through the arrests – it would lead to more trials, and more convictions, that would help contribute to the acceptance of the ICC as a serious court that is effective at bringing international criminals to justice. A legal institution needs to be effective to remain credible. [1] This would make countries much more likely to cooperate because the ICC would be doing more to help them by providing some of the necessary resources. Henry Kissinger apparently said “Who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?” (he is not sure he said it) because there is no single European leader, and if the US wants political or military cooperation it calls the UK or France. In much the same way if countries need help apprehending and convicting someone they are much more likely to call in the ICC if it can actually help them catch the wanted person. [2] [1] Perritt, Henry H., ‘Policing International Peace and Security: International Police Forces’, Chicago-Kent College of Law, March 1999, p.293 [2] Sobczyk, Marcin, ‘Kissinger Still Lacks a Number to Call Europe’, The Wall Street Journal, 27 June 2012, |
test-law-cpilhbishioe-con04a | ICC enforcement would create resentment There are good reasons for why an ICC enforcement arm would be ineffective on its own. It may have all the necessary equipment and training but it would be a foreign force, that may or may not be seen as legitimate, attempting to arrest a native of that country. The result would be resentment in the community at the intrusion. This regularly occurs to national police forces when policing in minority areas. In London the Brixton race riots were seen by one inquiry as “essentially an outburst of anger and resentment by young black people against the police” as the police did not represent them. [1] The result with the ICC as elsewhere would likely to at the least be a lack of cooperation, and with most of the force unable to speak the native language altering perceptions would be difficult. Such a force may bring even fewer results than using local forces and would provide a scapegoat for local politicians. [2] [1] Bowling, Ben, and Phillips, Coretta, ‘Policing ethnic minority communities’, LSE Research Online, 2003, p.4 [2] Perritt, Henry H., ‘Policing International Peace and Security: International Police Forces’, Chicago-Kent College of Law, March 1999, p.294 |
test-law-cpilhbishioe-con03a | An ICC enforcement arm would be highly detrimental to the relations between the ICC and state parties Currently the ICC functions based on a relationship of trust and understanding with the state parties to the ICC – a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach. This is backed up by the court’s respect for the for the principle of complementarity – it is hoped that national courts are capable of prosecuting the crimes, and the ICC only takes a role if the state is unwilling or unable to do so. Being willing to use an international force to catch criminals would make a mockery of this determination to leave power and responsibilities at the national level wherever possible. Having ICC forces on a country’s territory would be humiliating, showing that the international community does not trust that nation to catch war criminals itself. While this model did not provide for attempting to snatch government officials who have been indicted it does leave open the possibility of an international force intruding on states sovereignty without consent. This would diplomatically backfire and could even lead to an ICC force being involved in fighting with government forces protecting their national sovereignty. |
test-law-cpilhbishioe-con01a | An ICC enforcement arm is unnecessary To create an enforcement arm for the ICC would be to accept that state parties are incapable of enforcing decisions themselves, that is not necessarily the case. State parties have supplied the ICC with many of the defendants that it desires to face trial, including Bemba and the Gbagbos. Some, such as Uhuru Kenyatta have appeared voluntarily. The current system is working in many cases. While it does not in all, there are some that will be extremely difficult to capture by anyone. |
test-law-cpilhbishioe-con02b | What price justice? The ICC has been supported by a large number of states who accept that, while it does cost money, the ICC is the only effective way to bring war criminals and those who commit crimes against humanity to trial, provide them with a fair trial and sentence them appropriately. If that is the goal, states should be willing to finance means towards it. While the ICC’s existing budget of over €100M is substantial, it is dwarfed by, for example, the £4bn budget of London’s Metropolitan Police. In such context €100M is not a large amount to pay to bring international criminals to justice. The people the ICC pursue often engage in widespread destruction, apprehending them quickly may actually save rather than cost money by preventing such damage. |
test-law-tlcplghwfne-pro02b | Needle exchanges can result in areas of open drug use around the needle exchange. Given the level of criminality of drug users it often causes these areas to degenerate into dangerous places which the public cannot go to. This is effect causes harm to local business, not only because of the actual potential for harm, but also because people inherently fear drug dealers and addicts. As well as this, the area around the needle exchange will have large numbers of stray needles, often causing as much damage as they prevent in other areas.4 1. Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007. |
test-law-tlcplghwfne-pro03b | Some studies have shown that there are relatively few referrals to drug treatment clinics from needle exchanges. This might be due to the fact that drug addicts who attain clean needles assume that they are now ‘safe’ taking drugs and as such see no need to get into rehab for their addiction. Further, many needle exchanges are often unenthusiastic and ineffective at changing the behaviour of drug addicts. With the number of people who relapse despite the best care it can often be demoralising for staff and as such lead to lacklustre service that does not result in drug addicts getting clean. Ultimately it can also be argued that more funding should simply be focused upon treatment if the rehabilitation of drug addicts is such an important part of this scheme.1, 2 1. Noffs, David. “Should Needle Exchange Programmes Be Publically Funded?” Close to Home Online, 2. “Report: Needle Exchange Program Finds Mixed Success in Atlantic City.” Drugfree.org January 22, 2009. |
test-law-tlcplghwfne-pro03a | Needle exchanges can help social services to locate addicts who are in need of treatment Needle exchanges allow drug addicts to see formal parts of the state that they often associate with negatively as institutions that can help them. This allows them to more positively associate with other state mechanisms such as rehabilitation clinics in the future. This is further helped by clinic staff being able to recommend drug addicts to rehabilitation centres should they be looking for help and due to the more anonymous nature of clinic staff, drug addicts might ask for help from them as opposed to a closer person who they fear might judge them. In addition, social services for addicts can be centred on needle exchanges. Rehabilitation clinics as well as simpler facilities such as washrooms can be centred there as well as clinics for disease diagnosis. Further, in the clinics themselves, posters and information pertaining to drug awareness can be circulated in order to help addicts.1, 2 1. Debra L. O’Neill. "Needle Exchange Programs: A Review of the Issues". Missouri Institute of Mental Health. September 27, 2004 www.mimh200.mimh.edu/mimhweb/pie/reports/Needle%20Exchange.pdf 2. Noffs, David. “Should Needle Exchange Programmes Be publicly Funded?” Close to Home Online, |
test-law-tlcplghwfne-con01a | Creating needle exchange may normalise drug-taking behaviour Needle exchanges increase drug use. The state implicitly accepts that drug use is an acceptable practice when it aids drug users in practicing their habit. As such drug users feel less afraid of taking drugs. This can extend to first time users who might be encouraged by friends to take drugs using the morally grey area created by needle exchanges as an argument. Further, it is principally wrong that the state should help those who choose to take drugs to begin with. In doing so these people are choosing to firstly harm themselves and secondly cause harm to society as well as contravene the law. The state should exist in such a way that should someone contravene the law they be punished, not rewarded with extra supplies from the taxpayer with no further strings.1 1. Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007. |
test-law-phwmfri-pro02b | This motion will have no impact on that problem. Fines must be set at a low percentage of income so that the people earning the least do not find themselves going without essentials (a fine for speeding that caused you not to be able to heat your house in winter would seem, with good reason, disproportionate!) Consequently, whether the fine is £60 or £6000, there will always be some to whom paying the fine is not a problem, and who will happily pay in order to flout the law. |
test-law-phwmfri-pro03b | Whilst this may well appease some sections of society, it comes at the cost of resentment from the rich. This resentment will be magnified by media response: some newspapers and news outlets will choose to report this as an attack on the rich. The problem is therefore very similar to the questions posed by taxing the rich more; it may be considered fairer by the rest of society but it is pointless if the rich all simply move elsewhere as they now perceive the justice system to be unfair. |
test-law-phwmfri-pro01b | Even if a fine is made proportional to income, you will not get the equality of impact you desire. This is because the impact is not proportional simply to income, but must take into account a number of other factors. For example, someone supporting a family will face a greater impact than someone who is not, because they have a smaller disposable income. Further, a fine based on income ignores overall wealth (i.e. how much money someone actually has: someone might have a lot of assets but not have a high income). The proposition does not cater for these inequalities, which may well have a much greater skewing effect, and therefore the argument is being applied inconsistently. |
test-law-phwmfri-pro03a | Creates the perception that the rich are not immune to the consequences of their actions Fines that are not proportionate to income may create the perception that the rich are immune to the consequences of their actions. This is because people see those earning the least struggling to pay a fine, whilst the rich are able to pay that fine easily, without making any significant sacrifices. Canada is an example of this being the case with two thirds of respondents on surveys saying that the Canadian justice system is unfair because it provides preferential treatment to the rich compared to how harsh it is towards the poor.1 Making fines proportionate to income would change that perception. People would then see the law being applied in such a way as to punish all, not just certain sections of society. This will improve perceptions of (and consequently, relations with) the justice and law enforcement systems. It is important that justice is seen to be done, as well as occurring (sometimes referred to as the Principle of Open Justice), for several reasons. First, we operate a system of government by consent: people’s opinions of the justice system are deemed an important check and balance on the power of the law-makers. Consequently, if they are seen to ‘abuse their power’ by imposing a law seen to be unfair, they have an obligation either to adequately explain and defend the law, or change it. Second, people’s perceptions of law enforcement in one area spill over into other areas: it is the same police force enforcing all aspects of the law, and so the differences in policy origin are obscured. Consequently, if people deem law-enforcement to be unfair in one regard, they are less likely to trust it in other circumstances. Third, it is important that the justice system is seen to be impartial, rather than favouring any particular group, because it is only under such circumstances that its designations of acts as ‘crimes’ can be seen as a true reflection of what you ought and ought not to do, rather than just what would be in the interests of a given group. 1 ‘Justice and The Poor’, National Council of Welfare, 10 September 2012, |
test-law-phwmfri-con03b | Given, particularly, that it is those with the most money who are most likely to deem the fine ‘worth it’, this would be mitigated by the increased deterrent: the rich will now face substantially greater penalties. |
test-law-phwmfri-con01b | Whilst it is true that a crime ought to be proportionate to the severity of the crime committed, there is no reason why that must be the only factor. This motion does not remove the proportionality about which you are concerned, but merely adds an additional factor. If two people earn the same amount, but person A has committed a more serious crime, person A will still receive a larger fine. Further, it is unclear why people would find this more unfair than a system in which all were impacted equally by the fines they receive. |
test-law-phwmfri-con02a | The rich will resent this The rich will feel like they are receiving an unfair, ‘greater’ punishment. This resentment will be magnified by media response: some newspapers and news outlets will choose to report this as an attack on the rich just as is the case with progressive taxation which is often attacked as an assault on ‘wealth creation’.1 This may well increase the extent to which they break the law, because if you perceive the law to be applied unfairly, you are less likely to consider it to be making an accurate assessment of whether an action is right or wrong in any given situation. That is, in situations where you are unlikely to be caught committing a crime, the deterrent is clearly not the possible punishment (which you won’t face, because you won’t be caught). Rather, the deterrent is the extent to which you believe the illegal action to be morally wrong. If you believe a law is applied unfairly, you are less likely to consider the prohibited action to be actually, morally wrong, and therefore more likely to commit that act. 1 Cianfrocca, Francis, ‘Wealth Creation Under Attack’, Commentary, June 2009, |
test-law-phwmfri-con02b | Only a small number of people will act like this. Some people, though rich, are nevertheless capable of seeing beyond self-interest, and will consider the fine to be fair. This small harm is therefore easily outweighed by the improved perceptions of the justice system by those who currently believe it unfair that the rich can so easily buy their way out of trouble. |
test-law-hrpepthwuto-pro02a | Terrorist organisations such as Al Qaida do not respect the rights of individuals and the only way to fight fire is with fire Terrorist networks use fear, pain and suffering as their stock in trade. By definition, terror organisations are not bound by legal due process or rights of appeal and review. Instead they deal out death to innocent members of society who have no power to alter the events and policies that motivate terrorists atrocities. By contrast, the first role of governments is to protect their citizens’ safety and they should use all tools possible to ensure that innocents are not threatened with random death and destruction. In the light of these two realities, it is appropriate for governments to take extreme measure, such as torture, to protect their citizens. |
test-law-hrpepthwuto-pro01b | What about a biological bomb in a small town killing a few thousand. Or a lunatic with an M16 in a village killing fifty? Or preventing a single murder or rape? Anyone attempting to support the resolution must give a clear explanation of the point at which torture can be justified. How many individuals must information acquired through torture be able to save before the state is permitted to use pain and coercion against criminal and terrorist suspects in its custody? If it is right to use torture in an attempt to prevent the death of a single individual, when that individual is a member of a crowd, then why should the use of torture to protect the life of a single individual be considered unjustifiable? It makes no difference to the individual or to their family. Torture must either be treated as being unacceptable in all circumstances, or its use in all circumstances must be permitted. |
test-law-hrpepthwuto-con03b | No amount of legal niceties would bring any comfort to the families of those slaughtered in terrorist atrocities around the world. When you are fighting an enemy that has no time for the European Convention on Human Rights, the US Bill of Rights, English common law or the Geneva Convention it is simply impractical to apply those standards. The basic principle of terrorism is to cause as much fear, panic and destruction as possible. Terrorists do not have a set goal in mind, they are not functioning as rational individuals, and affording them the luxury of treating them as such ignores what they are likely to do. The great wars of the twentieth century were fought within the confines of post-Enlightenment thought, however extreme that may have become. The wars of the 21st seem set to be Mediaeval in nature, with the promise of paradise rather than provinces as the reward for martyrdom. The defense of the values of liberty and democracy must reflect that new and chilling reality. |
test-law-hrpepthwuto-con02a | Introducing the use of violence into the justice system means that liberties that have taken centuries to secure are lost The principle that all people are presumed innocent and, as a result, should not be abused either physically or mentally by officers of the state is one that took centuries- not to mention a great deal of blood and sweat- to establish. In the words of British Chief Justice Phillips this respect for human rights is, in and of itself, “a vital part in the fight against terror”, as if terrorism is to be defeated states that ascribe to such principles must show that they remain true to them in order to win the ideological battle. Using torture on suspected terrorist would be to tear apart that basic principle in response to crimes, which, it has been noted, are on nothing like the scale of the industrialised warfare of the twentieth century, would be a massively damaging step. Regardless of the scale of the crime the individual must have protections against false accusation and punishment, this means that a fair trial is necessary in order to determine innocence or guilt. |
test-law-hrpepthwuto-con03a | If legal principles are abandoned then there is little point in defending the liberties that democratic governments say they are so keen to defend If we accept that this is a war, then its focus is not so much political control of territory as the preservation of a way of life. It is ridiculous to fight to defend principles of equality and decency using the tool of abandoning them the moment they become inconvenient. The forces of religious extremism wish to undo 1,400 years of democratic development. We should not assist them in that process by allowing the major powers of the West throw out the most basic principles of the rule of law. Such a move, ultimately, has the potential to be vastly more destructive than the actions of a few fanatics |
test-law-hrpepthwuto-con02b | The era of battlefield warfare has passed. The war on terror may be a new form of combat, but the results are no less serious. Were a terrorist flying a military bomber aircraft to deliver a payload of death and destruction on one of the world’s major cities, nobody would think twice about shooting it down, killing the crew and preventing the bombing. There is no meaningful way in which the example above is morally different from leaving a bomb in a station or on a subway train. Societies have the right to defend themselves by all means necessary. The combatants involved in this process consider themselves to be at war and revel in the fatalities they cause. It is only sensible for states to treat these individuals as though that war were a reality in the more traditional meaning of the word. |
test-law-lghwpcctcc-pro02a | Video footage of a court case would provide valuable information for both defendant and judiciary. If the defendant is convicted of a crime, they have a right to appeal in the UK [1] and US [2] . However, this is made difficult for another court to re-assess the conviction if they cannot know how reliable evidence was in the first trial. Without film recordings of court trials, judges who have the duty to re-examine the case are unable to see witness testimonies; though new evidence does sometimes come to light during the course of an appeal [3] , it would be easier to assess this new evidence if the judges also had knowledge of how the first trial went. If the judges could watch a video of the first trial, they could judge the demeanour, body language and general impression given by each witness in the first trial. Body language can affect a court’s perception of a witness [4] , but this information could not be gained by a transcript. However, this evidence may be important for a new verdict to be reached. [1] , accessed 18/08/11 [2] , accessed 18/08/11 [3] , accessed 18/08/11 [4] , accessed 18/08/11 |
test-law-lghwpcctcc-con02a | Invoking public reaction can damage the lives of those concerned in the court case. Proposition may well argue that televising court cases gains a sense of ‘sympathy’ and justice for the victims of the case. However, this is double-edged. Firstly, particularly emotive and controversial court cases concerning crimes such as sexual assault could blind the public (or ‘audience’) to any untruthfulness from the ‘victim’, by virtue of being perceived as vulnerable and wronged. Secondly, any sympathy which is gained for one person often arises out of increased hatred or outrage against another – namely the defendant. This could lead to public condemnation of an individual who is never actually convicted of a crime; they will be exposed to public reaction that might be wholly unjustified if he is subsequently acquitted. One example of this is when Milly Dowler’s father was questioned in court as a suspect of his daughter’s death and his personal, pornographic magazines were used as evidence against him [1] . Although he was completely innocent, the prosecution’s job was to explore any possibility of perversion or dangerous character. This is an infringement upon that individual’s rights, as being publicly portrayed as a villain could go on to affect their future private life, such as their chances of future employment or anonymity. [1] , accessed 19/08/11 |
test-law-lghwpcctcc-con03a | Televising court cases undermines the right to privacy for the victim and the defendant’s family Court proceedings can be extremely stressful for the families of the accused, and publicising them in this way only makes this worse. Again, a good example of this is the Milly Dowler case, when her father’s pornographic magazines were used as evidence against him [1] . Not only did he then have to try and come to terms with his daughter’s disappearance, but also the knowledge that the media – and his family – now knew intensely personal details about him which were not even relevant to the case, but used to try and condemn him anyway. Meanwhile, although the family members have done nothing wrong, they are forced to listen to critical evidence of another family member which is suddenly now broadcast into peoples’ homes directly from the court. Their public and private lives would be irrevocably transformed by this experience. Secondly, because the defence must try to protect the defendant, these vilifying tactics can also be used against the victim – which could then lead to fewer people being prepared to testify. There is already a problem in society where not all crimes are even reported, sometimes because the victims are afraid of how people will then think of them [2] [3] . The knowledge that the defence will try to expose them as a fraud, or deny that the offence took place – in front of millions of people watching the case on television – suddenly becomes a much bigger obstacle for victims, especially if they are emotionally shaken by their experience [4] , to come forward and help a criminal to be convicted. [1] , accessed 19/08/11 [2] , accessed 19/08/11 [3] , accessed 19/08/11 [4] Support group for women who have been victims of rape; helping them to testify in court , accessed 19/08/11 |
test-law-lghwpcctcc-con02b | Withholding video evidence of a court trial will not stop people from automatically siding with the victim and denouncing the accused; it will just stop them from being able to see the body language and other actions which can balance out the media’s assertion that one party is definitively a ‘victim’ while the other is a ‘criminal’. These labels are already in place – televising court cases just helps us to understand the details and nuances of a case, and garner a more sophisticated view of the case in question. |
test-law-sdfclhrppph-pro01b | The argument leads to a slippery slope. It is one thing to regulate speech on matters that are objectively verifiable, quite another to restrict the permissible scope of opinion and expression. Even then, the state should be extremely cautious about declaring a state of objective fact. People taking advice on matters such as tax always take the risk that that advice may turn out to be bad, the amount of risk a person is willing to take is entirely a matter of personal responsibility and not a matter that the government should intervene in. |
test-law-sdfclhrppph-con02a | Individual Liberty outweighs any potential harms Whatever the potential harms that may arise from unrestrained free speech; they pale in comparison to the harm that arises from banning an individual from freely expressing his own mind. It is a matter of the upmost individual liberty that one’s thoughts and feelings are one’s own, and that individuals are free to express those thoughts and feelings openly. A prohibition on this liberty is a harm of incalculable value – it strikes right to the core of what it means to be in individual person. |
test-law-sdfclhrppph-con02b | Liberty is an intangible right – restrictions on liberty can be equally intangible and entirely transitory based on the circumstances. What we know though is that real harm is derived from defaming an individual’s reputation, broadcasting racist abuse and shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre. It is wrong to ignore real, tangible harm in favour of preventing fanciful and intangible harms. |
test-law-tahglcphsld-pro02a | Prohibition does not work; instead, it glamorizes drugs Those who want to use drugs will take them whether they are legal or not – and more are doing so than ever before. In 1970 there was something like 1,000 problematic drug users in the UK, now there are over 250,000. [1] Legalization will also remove the glamour which surrounds an underground activity and so make drug use less attractive to impressionable teenagers. For example, statistics suggest that cannabis use in the UK declined after its classification was lowered from ‘B’ to ‘C’. [2] [1] Home Affairs Select Committee, ‘The Government’s Drug Policy: Is It Working?’, parliament.uk, 22 May 2002, [2] Travis, Alan, ‘Cannabis use down since legal change’, The Guardian, 26th October 2007, |
test-law-tahglcphsld-pro07b | If the state is to make money from taxing drugs, this undercuts the (supposed) advantages of lower-priced drugs and will just encourage a black market to continue. In the UK, there is large black market for tobacco; it is suspected that tax has not been paid on 21% of cigarettes and 58% of hand rolling tobacco consumed. [1] Furthermore, for the state to take revenue from this practise is morally wrong, whatever use the money is put to. The point of drug treatment is to help abusers off drugs, but under the proposition’s system the state would have a financial interest in prolonging addiction. [1] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, ‘Tobacco Smuggling and Crossborder Shopping’, |
test-law-tahglcphsld-pro03b | Part of the reason that drugs are illegal is because of the health ramifications, which exist even if a drug is pure. To give a brief summary of some health harms that come from unadulterated drugs: “Cocaine can cause such long-term problems as tremors, seizures, psychosis, and heart or respiratory failure. Marijuana and hashish can cause rapid heart rate and memory impairment soon after use. Long-term effects include cognitive problems, infertility, weakened immune system, and possible lung damage. Narcotics such as heroin can bring on respiratory and circulatory depression, dizziness, impotence, constipation, and withdrawal sickness. Overdoses can lead to seizures and death.” [1] [1] Bowles Center for Alcohol Studies, ‘Effects of Alcohol and Drugs on your Health’, University of North Carolina, |
test-law-tahglcphsld-pro05a | Drugs currently fund terrorism and regional instability The Taliban gets most of its revenue from poppies, which provide the opium for heroin. They do this by intimidating local farmers who would otherwise sell their harvest at market. They then demand “protection money” as well, or else either another local warlord or the ‘protectors’ themselves would rob the farmer. Something like 22,700 people have died in Mexico since January 2007 from gangsters who want to protect their revenue and almost the entire continent of South America, from Brazil to Colombia, has had their governments destabilised by drug lords. [1] The hugely-costly but unsuccessful war on drugs could be ended, starving terrorists of the profits of drug production. As a result peace and development could be brought to unstable drug-producing states such as Colombia and Afghanistan. [1] Mexico under siege, The drug war on our doorstep, Los Angeles Times , 27 September 2011, |
test-law-tahglcphsld-pro01a | People should be free to take drugs Individuals are sovereign over their own bodies, and should be free to make choices which affect them and not other individuals. Since the pleasure gained from drugs and the extent to which this weighs against potential risks is fundamentally subjective, it is not up to the state to legislate in this area. Rather than pouring wasted resources into attempting to suppress drug use, the state would be better off running information campaigns to educate people about the risks and consequences of taking different types of drugs. |
test-law-tahglcphsld-pro07a | Legal drugs would increase tax revenue In 2009-2010, the tax revenue from tobacco in the UK was £10.5 billion. [1] If the state legalizes drugs, it can tax them and use the revenue from this practise to fund treatment. At the moment such treatment is difficult to justify as it appears to be spending ordinary taxpayers’ money on junkies. [1] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, ‘Tax Revenue From Tobacco’, accessed 16th June 2011 - |
test-law-tahglcphsld-pro01b | This point makes the assumption that drug use only affects the individual concerned; in reality, drug usage can have a significant effect on people close to the user, as well as wider society. People who can be affected include family who have to care for a user and victims of drug-related crimes. In addition, in countries with welfare states, there is an additional significant societal cost as many drug users cannot hold down jobs. [1] Studies in the USA have shown that parents often put their need for drugs above the wellbeing of their children. [2] This being the case, it is clear that the harms of drugs far outweigh governmental duty to protect individual freedoms. Furthermore, doing drugs may be a free choice at first, but after a certain period the drug user is no longer to choose for himself/herself because addiction overruns their judgement. [1] BBC News, ‘Drugs cost society £18.8bn’, 12 February 2002, [2] National Drug Intelligence Center, ‘The Impact of Drugs on Society’, National Drug Threat Assessment 2006, January 2006, |
test-law-tahglcphsld-pro05b | Whether legal or illegal, drugs will still be a source of income for warlords and terrorist groups. Instead of starving them off, the dealers become more competitive and lower their prices. The only way to stop these people using drugs as a source of income is to remove poppies from Afghan fields, to destroy coca plantations. |
test-law-tahglcphsld-pro06b | Perhaps alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal. However, one of the reasons why alcohol ranks so badly in such studies is because of its legality; if other drugs were legal, we would see their usage go up and therefore the negative social effects they produce rise as well. |
test-law-tahglcphsld-pro03a | Drugs are safer when legal Currently in the UK, purity of illegal Amphetamine is normally under 5%, and some tablets sold as ecstasy contain no MDMA at all. Instead, drugs are adulterated (“cut”) with substances from chalk and talcum powder to completely different drugs. [1] At least when drugs are legalised the state can regulate their sale to make sure that they are clean and not cut with other dangerous substances. This will minimise the risk to users. [1] Drugscope, ‘How Pure Are Street Drugs?’, updated January 2005, |
test-law-tahglcphsld-pro04a | Legalisation reduces crime The illegality of drugs fuels a huge amount of crime that could be eliminated if drugs were legalised. Price controls would mean that addicts would no longer have to steal to fund their habits, and a state-provided drug services would put dealers out of business, starving criminal gangs of their main source of funding. For example, an Italian Mafia family were making around $44bn a year from cocaine smuggling. [1] This represents something like 3% of Italy’s entire GDP – and that from only one crime syndicate. [1] Kington, Tom, ‘Italian police raids reveal how an 80-year-old gangster held sway over the feared Calabrian mafia’, The Observer, 18 July 2010, |
test-law-tahglcphsld-con03b | In a capitalist system reliant on supply and demand, the cost of a particular drug will always correspond to what people are willing to pay for them. So, there is no reason why a black market should spring up under a legalised system of drug sale. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.