id
stringlengths 14
54
| question
stringlengths 50
5.54k
| answer
stringlengths 3
7.07k
|
|---|---|---|
arguana-qrel-test-law-cplgpshwdp-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The motion completely undermines the assumption of innocence which accompanies a fair trial. By projecting past convictions on to a new case, this disclosure greatly weakens the presumption of innocence which is the defendant’s right [1] . It is the jury’s duty to form a verdict based on the relevant case, and it should not be dependent on events from the defendant’s past life which may be completely irrelevant to the case in hand. Many people who mistakenly committed a crime at one point in their life realise that it was a mistake and do not go on to re-offend, particularly if they have received help or treatment from the state [2] . Even if the defendant has repeatedly committed crimes in their past, it does not necessarily follow that they are guilty of the particular offence which has gone to trial. [1] Criminal Defense Department’ Every person is PRESUMED INNOCENT until Proven Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’, Parkes Law Group, 6 May 2011 [2] Public Safety Canada, ‘Treatment for sex offenders’, 28 December 2007 | crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous
Unfortunately, empirical evidence shows that past offenders are more likely to commit further offences [1] . Revealing past convictions could be a good indicator of how likely it is that the defendant could have committed a crime, particularly if it is a similar crime to one committed in the past. Acquitting a defendant of a crime which they had previously committed could easily create public outrage and discredit the justice system; it is only fair that past convictions should be taken into account alongside the rest of the evidence. [1] Edwards, Richard, ‘Half of all criminals re-offend within a year’, The Telegraph, 5 September 2008. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-umtlilhotac-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Witnesses might be identified and placed in danger Televising criminal trials may cause a number of problems with witnesses. It may make individuals less likely to give evidence, make them more likely to play to the television audience, or make the already intimidating process of giving evidence in court more so. Also, television broadcasts make it more likely that the identities of anonymized witnesses would leak out – something that has already happened at the ICC in the Ruto-Sang case [1] . The ICC already has problems with witnesses, including allegations of bribing and intimidating prosecution witnesses in the Ruto case [2] , which has led to Walter Barasa, a Kenyan Journalist, being subject to an arrest warrant [3] . Ending the televising of trials may go some way to remedy those problems. [1] Lattus, Asumpta, ‘Evenson: ‘First time arrest warrant has been issued in Kenya case’, Deutsche Welle, 2 October 2013, [2] Stewart, Catrina, ‘ICC on trials along with Kenya’s elite amid claims of bribery and intimidation’, The Guardian, 1 October 2013, [3] ‘ICC seeks Walter Barasa arrest for Kenya ‘witness tampering’, BBC News, 2 October 2013, | ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal
Giving evidence is a traumatic experience, TV coverage or otherwise. TV broadcasts can already have measures brought in to protect witnesses – for instance it could be agreed that they are not directly filmed. Anonymized witnesses at the ICC currently give evidence by video-link, of which the audio is distorted and the image pixelated out, save for those who are permitted to see it, such as the judges and counsel. The ICC already enters in to arrangements with other states for the protection of witnesses in their physical safety. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-umtlilhotac-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Televising turns justice into entertainment Broadcasting trials would be likely to turn the court in to entertainment. The Simpson trial showed how harmful a televised high profile trial can be degenerating into a freak show. The ICC trials are among the most high profile in the world so are likely to be susceptible to this. Much of the interest in the SCSL Charles Taylor trial came along when Naomi Campbell gave evidence so giving the trial celebrity interest that had little to do with the legalities involved [1] . Jurisdictions where cameras are not permitted in courts still can and do have accurate, informative and timely reports of cases, however high profile, without filming them. Courtroom sketches, written transcripts and other tools allow reportage without the use of original footage in a tawdry manner. [1] Bowcott, Owen, ‘Charles Taylor and the ‘dirty-looking stones’ given to Naomi Campbell’, theguardian.com, 26 April 2012, | ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal
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 |
arguana-qrel-test-law-umtlilhotac-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Unruly defendants can play up to the cameras Televising the trial can create extra incentives for defendants to attempt to disrupt the process. During his trial, Saddam Hussein regularly made outbursts and went on political rants – based on Iraqi law, he was able to examine witnesses after his lawyer. This was not new – Slobodan Milosevic tried various antics in front of the (televised) ICTY [1] , and Ratko Mladic used those tactics post-Hussein [2] . Milosevic’s approval ratings grew, and he even won a seat in the Serbian parliament while on trial. A televised trial creates more of a risk of a political hijacking of the trial – something that has been shown to be a successful tactic by Milosevic. This both potentially damages the successor government by giving those on trial a platform and the court itself. [1] Scharf, Michael P., Chaos in the Courtroom: Controlling disruptive defendants and contumacious counsel in war crimes trials’, University of Galway [2] Biles, Peter, ‘Mladic’s courtroom antics’, BBC News, 4 July 2011, | ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal
The Hussein trial identified the solution to problematic rants disrupting the trial - the TV feed cut to the judge and faded out Hussein’s sound [1] . This is part of the reason why the ICC broadcasts are on a 30 minute delay, on web and TV access – outbursts, material that should be redacted and other things can be redacted before it reaches viewers. These antics have been used in trials before the rolling news era, such as in the Chicago Eight case in the US, the trial of eight activists (one of whose trials was separated) for conspiracy and incitement to riot for offences regarding demonstrations at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. One of the defendants, Bobby Seale, launched in to a vicious vocal tirade against the judge, and was eventually bound and gagged in the courtroom. During the trial of the other seven, the defendants tried various antics including blowing kisses to the jury, wearing judicial robes which were removed to reveal police uniforms, not standing when the judge entered the court, and draping a North Vietnamese flag over the defence table [2] . The convictions – including those of the defence counsel for contempt of court – were overturned due to improper jury selection. Television is not necessary for such behaviour. [1] Engel, Richard, ‘Saddam trial outbursts, heard but not seen’, NBC News, 5 December 2005, [2] Linder, Douglas O., ‘The Chicago Seven Conspiracy Trial’, University of Missouri Kansas City, |
arguana-qrel-test-law-umtlilhotac-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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 | ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal
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 |
arguana-qrel-test-law-umtlilhotac-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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. | ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal
Transcripts and other forms of notation would also set a historical record. While the Nuremberg trials were filmed, live television broadcast was not technically possible, footage was used for newsreels at the time. The lack of continuous total film footage has not stopped the Nuremberg trial from setting a historical record – the written judgements and transcripts are enough. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-umtlilhotac-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: ICC does not have same problems as other legal systems The ICC as a court does not have many of the things that a domestic criminal trial would have in terms of disadvantages of televising. Like all other international tribunals, there is no jury, only a panel of professional judges. Judges are going to be less intimidated by there being television broadcasts even if broadcasts of trials typically aim to obscure the identity of the jury. Similarly, there is a competent system of witness protection, and other safeguards. | ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal
While there is no jury that could be identified, or influenced, by the broadcast, there is still the other problems attached to televised trials – issues of legitimacy, lawyers and defendants acting up etc. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cplglghwbhwd-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Handguns are uniquely dangerous when compared with other weapons Handguns are specifically worse than most other weapons. They are weapons which are both concealable and portable. Shotguns and Rifles can easily be identified from a long distance making it easier to avoid those who are carrying them or conversely for the authorities check their motives for carrying arms. Handguns, being ranged weapons (as opposed to knives), prevent people from opting to run away if they are confronted by an attacker and being concealable prevent any attempt at avoiding those carrying them. Because of these unique capabilities they make excellent weapons for gang members who wish to remain inconspicuous to avoid being searched by the police. Further, they are also uniquely useful for other criminal actors such as drug dealers who need to be able to protect themselves, but also need to appear unassuming for clients. As such, handguns, where they are freely available, are often used by most criminals for these purposes. Given that handguns are also more likely to cause accidental injuries- as a result of incompetence or recklessness- than a knife, it seems logical that handguns cause a much larger harm to citizens in places where they are freely available.4 | crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc
Opposition agrees that handguns have unique advantages over other weapons; however, banning handguns in this area would lead to worse problems which are mentioned here as well as in the first point of opposition. The biggest issue with banning handguns, especially in a city, is that handguns will still be available to criminal classes willing to simply import the weapons from elsewhere. Due to their concealable nature it is very easy for them to smuggle handguns into an area where a handgun ban has been imposed. This is problematic because law abiding citizens in this area will now not have guns to defend themselves with. As such an asymmetry of power has been created where the people who bear guns, mainly criminals have weapons which give them significantly more power than the citizens in that area. Under the status quo, the legality of handguns means that although they are more dangerous than other weapons, their availability works in citizens’ favour. This is because the asymmetry of power mentioned above is then weighted in the other direction. If a large proportion of the population have handguns for self-defence then there will be a greater chance that criminals attempting to commit violent acts will encounter individuals carrying weapons, resulting in an equality of power between both attacking and defending parties. The asymmetry is then pushed towards the defensive parties because presumably there are more law abiding citizens than criminals. As such those who wish to use guns for defensive purposes outnumber those who want to use guns for criminal purposes, weighting power in favour of those defending themselves. This is verified by the incredibly common use of handguns in self-defence; roughly 80% of self-defence actions involve handguns.4 |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cplglghwbhwd-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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 | crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc
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 |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cplglghwbhwd-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A handgun ban reduces crime and deaths Aside from the fact that handguns are uniquely dangerous weapons, when the handgun ban was in place in DC, there was a reported decrease in crime in the area. In 1977 the year immediately following the ban the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported robberies, assaults and homicides using handguns had fallen in DC sharply. Further, in 1991 the University of Maryland published a study in the New England journal of Medicine suggesting the gun ban had saved lives in the decade before 1991, claiming that the ban had prevented 47 deaths in DC per year.5 It is theorised that the handgun ban does this because it makes other police tactics, such as stop and search, significantly more effective. If criminals wish to get the tactical advantage of power that opposition mention then they have to carry hand guns in order to do it. However, it means that if they are caught with a gun they become very easily identifiable and can easily be arrested to prevent harm coming to the populace of large. Specifically, the handgun ban means that the police have a much lower burden required in order to arrest suspects and given that a lot of the time the police have a strong idea of who the criminals are, but simply can’t pin them for arrest, such a tactical advantage helps them get dangerous people off the street. | crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc
Studies have been conducted on cities where a handgun ban has been implemented. It found that cities such as New York and DC continued to exhibit high rates of crime and proved to be some of the most dangerous cities in the world, regardless of the ban on guns.6 As mentioned, this is because criminal gangs and criminogenic neighbourhoods in these cities have become entrenched. Anyone desperate enough to seek out a handgun- either for use in a crime or as a means of defending themselves in a crime-ridden neighbourhood- is likely to be able to acquire one regardless of the legal control that city councils may attempt to put in place. In the case of stop and search laws, it proves that criminals are adaptable and change their methods based on this lower burden of proof. For example, many gangs opt to keep guns in armouries and only loan them out as and when they are necessary. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cplglghwbhwd-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Handguns are Required For Symbolic Reasons As A Defence Against the State Monopoly of Power Handguns are legal in the U.S. for symbolic reasons. In Justice Scalla’s oral argument he stated “isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”9 Guns are necessary to prevent the disarming of the people and as a statement that the citizens of the U.S. are allowed to stand up against the state. In the formation of the state, the citizens of the state give up their freedoms and their ability to do violence upon each other in favour a state monopoly on violence. The implication is that the state, through this monopoly on violence, then prevents citizens from doing violence against one another. However, it is possible for the state to use its monopoly on physical force in a reckless or subversive fashion. This means that the citizens should always be able to reassert the primacy of their rights and independence over the state, should the state begin to deviate from its mandated role as protector of those rights. The right to carry firearms is part of this ability to assert one’s power over the state. However, as the state has become more powerful, ownership of small arms has become an increasingly symbolic gesture. Taking away the right to bear arms from any American is thus harmful, as it removes the symbol that the state’s power is not absolute and that ultimately the state is subservient to its people.10 | crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc
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 |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cplglghwbhwd-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The DC Handgun ban is inconsistent with other legislation in the U.S. A change in legislation in DC that is markedly different from everywhere else in the U.S. is harmful. Whilst the constitution might be amended to give a specific change for DC, the rest of the U.S. will still be able to bear arms. The point of the American constitution is that it is meant to give an even field to all citizens under the law. Minor differences between people within different states is acceptable; owing to specific needs of specific states and all state legislation must be proved to be constitutional anyway. This difference is specifically problematic because of the nature of its interactions with both the constitution and the law. This change is harmful because the state is dependent upon consistency within the law and perception of the law as being a fair mechanism for all people. Large inconsistencies within the law should not be tolerated as such inconsistencies often bring into debate the legitimacy of the state’s legal code. This is problematic as such debates and inconsistencies can lead to confusion about the reach of the law as well as doubt in the legitimacy of the law. The law is dependent upon citizens understanding and subscribing to the legal code, otherwise legal systems might suffer from problems such as people simply not reporting crime to the police owing to their doubt in the legal system and its ability to protect them, or otherwise law abiding citizens from other areas of the country inadvertently breaking the law by bringing guns into D.C. | crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc
Democracy is designed to be a flexible mechanism that can change based on different circumstances and at different times. The American constitution should provide a legal basis for all citizens of the U.S. However, the reason such a legal basis exists is such that citizens in the U.S. are fairly treated under the law and thus benefit through the stability that such fairness creates. However, it is also feasible that at certain points, part of the constitution could work out very badly for the state in some areas. This is why a system of amendments to the constitution exists. As such, it is feasible that the constitution should also be able to deal with transitional periods where certain areas should be allowed different rights under the constitution because each area requires different laws in order to work properly that cannot be created on a state level. Whilst this might cause some tension, most people in DC, particularly the non-criminals would probably understand the reasons behind a ban on handguns in their area, and indeed did when handguns were initially banned there.13 |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cplglghwbhwd-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Hand Guns Are Required For Self Defence. Under the status quo handguns are legal. This means that should a criminal initially wish to consider mugging someone he has to consider the possibility that he might be shot should he choose to take this action. A visceral fear of death and injury means that a significant number of criminals will be deterred from engaging in burglaries, violent robberies or muggings if they suspect that they might face armed resistance. As such the presence of handguns within a community contributes to the general deterrence of crime within that community.7 Secondly, should someone try to attack someone else with a handgun, if the other person is armed then they are in a much better position to negotiate with their attacker and prevent harm to either party. Creating a public culture in which handguns are held and used sensibly, and in which firearms training is widely available, allows a parity of power to be created between ordinary citizens and criminals. However, this parity of power is changed in favour of the defender. This is because there are more law abiding citizens than criminals. If the mugger is caught by another citizen then it is possible that citizen will also have a handgun leading to a situation where the mugger will likely be arrested or risk death.8 Finally, the normalisation of handguns in society means that people are less likely to panic should they be attacked by a mugger who has one. Deaths from mugging can often be caused by the victim simply panicking in response to the mugger. Shots are often fired by desperate and unstable assailants who are unprepared for their victim’s reaction. In a society acclimatised to handguns and aware of the risk they present, incidents of this type- fuelled by panic, uncertainty and fear- are much less likely to occur. | crime policing law general local government house would ban handguns washington dc
Firstly, the deterrence effect created by guns disappears if the use of guns is considered normal behaviour among the populace. Many violent and opportunistic crimes are committed out of necessity. They are not based on a rational calculus of the sort that side opposition discusses. In a society where gun use is normalised, criminals are more likely to view death as a hazard of their occupation, similar to arrest and imprisonment. In these circumstances, the deterrent effect of widespread gun ownership will quickly abate, overridden by desperation. Further, if crimes are being committed by gangs then often, need for respect from the gangs or fear of reprisal will simply override any beliefs regarding deterrence. Finally, criminals are very careful to pick actors who aren’t likely to be well armed and to do so in secluded places. As such, it is incredibly unlikely that they will be deterred from crime. Secondly, people are likely to have guns holstered. This means that should they be mugged by a criminal they will be unable to retrieve their weapons from their holsters because any movement toward the holster will likely result in them being shot. As such, any concept of a parity of power between actors simply does not exist under the status quo |
arguana-qrel-test-law-sdiflhrdffe-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Democracies have an obligation to shield these people and to encourage further dissent The universality of human rights, of the freedom of speech and of due process is all touted as crucial by the world’s democracies. Democratic countries are frequently vocal on the subject of liberty, on the superiority of their system of government that provides for the best protection of human dignity. By offering amnesty to bloggers, the people standing at the forefront of the democratic cause in oppressive regimes, Western countries take a largely low-cost action that provides for the security and safety of some the bravest people in the public arena. The West must stop kowtowing to oppression and make a stand to offer an umbrella of protection to those who need it. That protection is absolutely crucial to the development of more dissent in the blogosphere and on the ground. Only by nurturing dissent can it ever take root and overcome the vast powers of authoritarian government. The promise of protection is hugely powerful because it gives bloggers a safety net to fall back on. Those already active will feel more empowered to speak out against their oppressors, and some currently cowed by fear will have the courage to speak up. The guarantee of amnesty also removes the perceived randomness of such offerings that currently occur, as in the recent case of Cuba in which two bloggers of similar pedigree asked for asylum in the US, but only one received it. [1] Such inconsistency has bred fear in the minds of dissidents. This policy would correct for it and help bolster the cause of justice on all fronts. It is through offering amnesty that democracies can provide the catalyst for the change they avow to be the paramount aim of human civilization. [1] Fox News Latino. “Cuba: Prominent Blogger-Dissidents Receive Contradictory Results on Visa Petitions”. 31 January 2013. | speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-sdiflhrdffe-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: These people are under serious threat for their pursuit of justice The internet has become the paramount means of voicing dissent within repressive regimes. As the technology regimes have to keep control of their people increases, with access to high-tech surveillance technology adding to their already formidable arsenals of physical oppression, the internet has become the only platform to express meaningful dissent. The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, for example, wherein people mobilized to overthrow their dictator has even been dubbed the Twitter Revolution. [1] Bloggers have become a major voice of dissent in other repressive regimes, including Cuba and China. Yet the blog platform is far from safe. Governments have sought to crack down on bloggers’ ability to dissent, using draconian methods like imprisonment to cow them into silence. In China the arrests of bloggers like Zhai Xiaobing, who was arrested and detained for simply posting a joke about Communist Party, have served to frighten many into silence. [2] So long as information is denied to the public, governments are able to maintain their repression. Only external help from democratic, or at least more liberal, states can provide the safe haven for people who have rubbed their governments the wrong way in their pursuit of reform and justice. [1] Zuckerman, E. “The First Twitter Revolution?”. Foreign Policy. 14 January 2011. [2] Wong, G. “Zhai Xiaobing, Chinese Blogger, Arrested for Twitter Joke About China’s Government”. Huffington Post. 21 November 2012. | speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression
Offering amnesty will not serve the cause of justice, it is responding to the symptom not the cause. It is unfortunate that individual bloggers suffer at the hands of governments, but seeking to give them amnesty will only serve to anger the regimes, leading to even further oppression and stifling of dissent. This unfortunately means that an individual is saved even as their actions may result in further reductions in the liberties of those who remain. As seen in China, the process of reform is slow and gradual. Upsetting that process could well increase the repression Western peoples feel to be so reprehensible. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-sdiflhrdffe-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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, | speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression
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, |
arguana-qrel-test-law-sdiflhrdffe-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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, | speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression
Liberal democracy is in a clash of ideologies with other competing systems, they promote their own systems through other means such as aid to regimes that are considered to be backsliding by liberal democracies with no strings attached. It is critical that the democratic paradigm not submit to the demands of other systems that would undermine the rights and values that democracy has come to view as universal. While liberal democracy may not be the only legitimate form of governance there are universal right, such as freedom of expression, which must be accepted by all states and should be protected both at home and abroad. China’s vibrant dissident community is example enough that the alternative rights framework that the Communist Party offers is deficient. Rather than let those fresh shoots of democratic advocacy be smothered, the West should nurture them, and give them protection when they face vicious threats from cruel regimes. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-sdiflhrdffe-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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, | speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression
An amnesty would clearly only be offered under certain circumstances. In cases where there are judicial proceedings then the offer of an amnesty could only take effect when the individual being offered it is released and able to take advantage of the offer. It is also wrong to consider that an offer of an amnesty is unwarranted interference in internal affairs; the country in question clearly objects to what the blogger is doing so this is opening an avenue where both the state and blogger get what they want. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-sdiflhrdffe-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The offer of amnesty allows home governments to discredit bloggers and paint them as foreign agents of disruption When Western states and democracies offer amnesty to bloggers under threat from their home governments, the blogger’s views and comments immediately become coloured in the eyes of the public. The government is able to point to the Western powers offering this amnesty and can easily claim that their offers are the result of collusion between bloggers and their foreign patrons to spread propaganda, so the blogger is therefore guilty of treason. As unfortunate as it may be in individual cases, the result is that offering amnesty will only weaken the cause of democracy. Being sent to prison for their beliefs will do far more to serve their cause than seeking succour in the arms of another state, one that has demonstrated antagonism toward their homeland. The ability for governments to stoke nationalist fires has been thoroughly demonstrated in recent months by China’s reaction toward territorial disputes with Japan. [1] It is very easy to rile the public against a perceived external aggressor, especially given that these states often control much of the mainstream media outlets, and those who offer amnesty give themselves up on a platter as an adversary to be exploited in the public consciousness. The better plan for democracies in pursuit of their goals is to condemn acts of oppression and to seek diplomatic redress, but direct interference in the course of states’ justice will doing nothing but harm relations with regimes and turn the people against the proponents of reform. [1] The Economist. “Barren Rocks, Barren Nationalism”. 25 August 2012. | speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-sdiflhrdffe-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: An amnesty policy will serve only to alienate regimes, shutting down the possibility of discourse or reform It is a natural conclusion that a repressive regime, which operates largely by force and the control of its population, will react rather negatively to an action by the West that appears to be a calculated, public, and on-going subversion of their power in favour of criminal dissidents. The result of such action by Western democracies will not be any positive discourse between the targeted regime and the West, but will rather cause a breakdown in communication. They will be reticent to engage for the very reason that the states seeking to influence them are clearly not interested in dealing on an equal footing, but rather wish to undermine their way of life in favour of asserting their own superiority. The best way to actually get talks about reform started, and to empower those who wish for more democracy and press freedom, is to patiently engage with these regimes, to coax them peaceably toward reform without threatening their core aims. [1] Aggression toward them will generate aggression in return as is shown again and again by North Korea and the responses to its actions by the United States. While incremental change may feel glacial, the long game is the only way to get changes without letting blood flow through the streets. The only possible outcome of this policy would be a harsher crackdown on bloggers by these governments. [1] Larison, D. “Engagement is Not Appeasement”. The American Conservative. 17 December 2012. | speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-rmelhrilhbiw-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The Settlements commit future Israeli governments to a harder stand in future negotiations Whether deliberate or not, the settlements are changing the “facts on the ground” by changing the political calculus for future Israeli governments. While most Israeli politicians accept the need to abandon some smaller settlements, the vast majority are unlikely to be evacuated. It was politically divisive to the point of breaking the Likud party in two when Ariel Sharon, a man with more credit than anyone else on the Israeli right pulled out of Gaza in 2005, and there were only a little over 7000 Israeli settlers there. By contrast there are now more than 300,000 settlers in the West Bank, and this number is rising fast. [1] There were less than 200,000 in 2000. [2] Of these settlers, many are religious and vote for the Haridam (Orthodox) parties like the National Religious Party . [3] Because the party has served in governments of both the Left and the Right in recent years, in practice they and the ultra-nationalist Israel Beitinu tend to hold the balance of power in the Israeli Knesset. Therefore every time Israel expands settlements, they are reducing their room to manoeuvre in future Peace Negotiations, and forcing themselves to take a harder stance. This means that Peace will either become less likely (because Israel will set more extreme terms) or that Israel will face more internal divisions in order to offer it. In either case, as the settlements expand [1] Levinson, Chaim, ‘IDF: More than 300, 000 settlers live in West Bank’, Haaretz.com, 27 July 2009, [2] Wikipedia, ‘Population statistics for Israeli West Bank settlements’, en.wikipedia.org, , accessed 20 January 2012 [3] Etkes, Dror, ‘The Ultra-Orthodox Jews in the West Bank’, Peace Now, October 2005, | rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west
First, it is unclear if this is even true. A 2010 poll showed support for dismantling settlements in exchange for Peace at an all-time high in Israel. [1] Secondly, even if it is true that settlements complicate the internal Israeli political picture, the impact on the Peace Process is limited to the extent to which one accepts that the West Bank borders are sacrosanct. Beyond that, the difference in political cost between uprooting 180,000 and 300,000 settlers is marginal at best – both are likely impossible concessions for any Israeli government to make except under enormous international pressure in which case the numerical difference is of limited importance. Far more important is accepting that the assumption that the West Bank boundaries are sacrosanct has done far more harm than good. It gives neither side room to compromise on the issues of vital importance to them. For Israel, providing defence in depth for Tel Aviv which is only sixteen miles from Jerusalem, for the Palestinians, ensuring that their national home is economically viable. Far better would be to use the existent of the settlements to pressure both sides to accept that some portion of the West Bank will remain with Israel in any settlement, while in exchange, some portion of Israel proper approximately equal in size will be transferred to a future Palestinian entity. Once both sides accept this premise, the number of options for an agreement and for compensations on the issues of dispute increase astronomically. It is perhaps for this reason that support for this exchange has moved from the fringes to the mainstream of Israel Political thinking with even Tzipi Livni of the Center-Left Kadima now open to it. [2] [1] Richman, Alvin, ‘Israeli Public’s Support for Dismantling Most Settlements Has Risen to a Five-Year High’, World Public Opinion.org, 15 April 2010, [2] Carlstrom, Gregg, ‘Lieberman sees common ground with Livni’, Al Jazeera, 25 January 2011, |
arguana-qrel-test-law-rmelhrilhbiw-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The Settlements are illegal, and demonstrate the impotence of the international community The Settlements, constructed on land that is neither recognizably Israel’s nor which Israel has even claimed to annex are illegal, encroaching on the territory of a future Palestinian state. It is absurd for the international community to demand the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, and yet allow Israel to establish its population on that land in settlements that view themselves and are viewed by Israel as Israeli territory. [1] Furthermore, their continued expansion is something that each and every Palestinian can see every day. As a result, the continued expansion both: 1. Destroys Palestinian confidence in the ability and willingness of the International community to enforce its own promises, especially after repeated American and European promises to stop their construction. 2. Convinces Palestinian opinion that the negotiating process is an Israeli game to buy time until they have changed the facts on the ground. As a consequence of these two factors, the continued expansion of settlements has an impact in driving Palestinians towards violent resistance even beyond the direct impact of the settlement construction by undermining their faith in International Law, and by adding a sense of urgency to their grievances. [1] MacIntyre, Donald, ‘The Big Question: What are Israeli settlements, and why are they coming under pressure?’, the Independent, 29 May 2009, | rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west
The settlements are a sideshow that provide a convenient excuse for the Palestinians and their foreign friends to ignore the real (and difficult to solve) issues such as Jerusalem and what sort of sovereignty a Palestinian state would have. For one thing, international law is very unclear on who owns the West Bank. Jordan gave up all claim to it in 1988, but its unclear as to whether their annexation in 1949 was legitimate in the first place. [1] Only Pakistan and Great Britain ever legally recognized Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank. Secondly, the current border of the West Bank are arbitrary, the results of the military conflict of 1948-49 for which they represent the cease-fire line. As a consequence, even if one accepts the principle that there should be a Palestinian state in the West Bank, it does not follow that the final international border should follow the regions border exactly. It might for instance to make sense, as Israelis like Avigador Lieberman have suggested, to trade Arab villages in Israel proper for settlement areas on the West Bank. [2] The Settlement issue mainly serves the purpose of putting Israel in the wrong, so as to distract from the need on the part of the Palestinians to define what sort of state they are willing to accept. The problem is not territory per se, but what happens to that territory and it’s on that issue that previous efforts to reach peace deals have faltered. [1] ‘Jordan Renounced Claims to West Bank, 1988’, Palestine Facts, [2] Carlstrom, Gregg, ‘Lieberman sees common ground with Livni’, Al Jazeera, 25 January 2011, |
arguana-qrel-test-law-rmelhrilhbiw-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The Settlements are seen by Palestinians as a sign of bad faith on the part of Israel, and therefore weaken the hand of Pro-Peace elements As important as the existence of the settlements themselves is their continued growth. The very fact that Israel has continued to ostensibly negotiate for the independence of a Palestinian state in the West Bank on one hand while rapidly expanding the population and the size of Israeli settlements can be interpreted as a sign of bad faith. For one thing, it raises questions of the seriousness with which Israel is attempting to reach an agreement. Even if the programs of Settlement expansion are intended as a temporary policy in lieu of a settlement, the very fact that Israel’s plan B is arguably as popular as peace, and being pursued with far more vigour could lead many Palestinians to conclude that Israel is attempting to run out the clock. The consequences of this are inauspicious for the Peace Process. As Palestinian faith in the prospect of peaceful negotiations falters, groups like Hamas are likely to find an increasingly receptive audience for their view that only force will compel Israel to negotiate seriously. This in turn will make compromise all the more difficult to achieve. | rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west
The settlements at the current time occupy less than 3% of the West Bank, [1] and even if one were to take into account the land needed for their security in any settlement, most have predicted that at most 9-11% of the region would be affected, much less than the area currently controlled by the settlements, [2] and this would be subject to compensation elsewhere. The vast majority of this growth is taking place existing settlements or adjacent to them, so even large amounts of proportional growth are not shifting the percentages sharply. Furthermore, a time factor is far from a uniform negative. A large portion of the Palestinian strategy from the mid-1990s onwards has arguably been to drag out negotiations while hoping that a better international climate would lead other countries to exert pressure on Israel for concessions. This strategy has seen their negotiating position deteriorate and undermined support for an agreement within Israel. By adding a time element, it incentives the Palestinians to think seriously about pressing for an agreement now, rather than looking to fantasy solutions like potential UN recognition that would do nothing to alter the fundamental fact that any possible agreement will have to be made with, and therefore be acceptable to, Israel. [1] Fleischer, Tzvi, ‘How much land do West Bank settlements take up?’, Australian/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, [2] CBS News, ‘Group: Israel Controls 42% of West Bank’, 6 July 2010, |
arguana-qrel-test-law-rmelhrilhbiw-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Settlements remove Palestinians from their own land, and they produce a self-perpetuating cycle in their sear The settlements themselves are self-perpetuating in a manner that makes them pernicious to the rights and very existence of neighbouring Palestinian communities. For one thing, a settlement cannot function in isolation. It needs a road for its residents to safely travel to and from work in Israel. Security needs subsequently require that this road be protected from attacks by creating a large military presence along its route, and in many cases moving existing Palestinian settlements. At the very least Palestinian areas are bisected by impassable thoroughfares. [1] In turn settlements require their fields to be protected by high walls and electric fences to protect them from attack, and the construction crews building them also require protection. The result is that even a settlement of a few hundred families rapidly requires the takeover of an amount of land out of all proportion to the actual number of settlers involved, and any further expansion compounds the problem. [2] The security needs of settlements create a situation which makes the livelihood of Palestinians impossible. The existence of the settlements makes these security policies a necessity. As a consequence, the only clear solution is the removal of the settlements. [1] United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian territory, ‘The Humanitarian Impact of Israeli Settlement Policies’, January 2012, [2] CBS News, ‘Group: Israel Controls 42% of West Bank’, 6 July 2010, | rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west
First of all, the security precautions are not a perquisite of settlements in and of themselves, but a consequence of the violent condition of the West Bank. Similar settlements in the Negev do not require anywhere near the degree of investment in security and protection. Such precautions will almost certainly be removed not only in a final settlement but also in any intermediate ones. Israel has already shown a preparedness of to lift travel restrictions on Palestinians in exchange for reductions in violence. [1] [1] Hass, Amira, ‘Israel to lift restrictions on Palestinian Jordan Valley travel’, Haaretz.com, 26 April 2007, |
arguana-qrel-test-law-rmelhrilhbiw-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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, | rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west
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, |
arguana-qrel-test-law-rmelhrilhbiw-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: There is nothing legal or sacred about the West Bank’s borders – it was an ad-hoc armistice line never recognized internationally The West Bank is not some sort of recognized entity with legally or internationally recognized boundaries. Its borders were the 1948 cease-fire line between Israeli and Jordanian forces, and Jordan’s annexation of the region, and hence the borders were only recognized by two countries – the United Kingdom and Pakistan. [1] This is important, because the entire challenge to the legality of the settlements, i.e. Why they are unacceptable in Hebron but not in the Negev, is due to the belief that Israel is somehow annexing Palestinian territory. While some of the West Bank was intended to be part of a Palestinian state in 1948, and some will be incorporated into a new one in the future, Israel is under no responsibility to the international community or any comprehension of International law to recognize boundaries that have no legal force and do not legally exist. [1] ‘Jordan Renounced Claims to West Bank, 1988’, Palestine Facts, | rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west
If de facto boundaries exist for a long enough time they gain legal force. The border between North and South Korea is a legal armistice line, rather than an official international boundary, but anyone attempting to make that argument upon crossing it would be likely to receive a cool reception. The boundaries of the West Bank were de facto recognized, first when Israel and Jordan agreed to abide by them for twenty years after 1948, second when Jordan ceded all claim to the territories, and third implicitly by Israel itself which has made no claim to annex the territory, even in areas where settlements are located. They have not bothered with this sort of diplomatic care when it comes to the Golan Heights which they annexed. [1] As a consequence it can be implied that at least Israel believes that its claims to the West Bank are questionable, and would like to ensure them through negotiation and this makes the claim that they don’t know exactly what they are doing in the West Bank and that it’s a de facto violation of International Law something less than plausible.. [1] Wikipedia, ‘Golan Heights’, en.wikipedia.org, , accessed 20 January 2012 |
arguana-qrel-test-law-rmelhrilhbiw-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The Palestinians were full participants in the 1948 War against Israel Before the discussion of the Palestinians as the innocent victims of Israeli oppression can be established, it should be noted that the Palestinian leadership were full participants in rejecting the 1948 partition plan and the war that followed. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem rejected any form of compromise, and urged the removal of the region’s Jewish population, while massacres of Jewish settlers at Palestinian hands and the complete elimination of the Jewish presence in the areas of Palestine that the Israelis did not secure in 1948 speaks to a certain degree of popular enthusiasm. [1] Following 1948, Israeli law provided for compensation or the return of land for any exiled Palestinians who returned to Israel proper and took an oath to the state. This does not justify the actions of Israel in their entirety, but the tragedy of the Palestinian people is partially of their own making, and if one accepts the principles of the right of return, then the creation of Israeli settlements furthers this on the Israeli side. Furthermore, it calls into question what, if any legal claim the Palestinians can have to any land on the basis of a UN partition plan they rejected, and on the basis of principles and practices they themselves have subverted. [1] Dershowitz, Alan, ‘Has Israel’s Victimization of the Palestinians Been the Primary Cause of the Arab-Israeli Conflict?’, The Case for Israel, Chapter 10, 2003, | rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west
It is absurd to argue that because someone is hypocritical that they lose their rights. The fact is that the Palestinians today are not guilty of the crimes of their ancestors anymore than the Israelis are. Rather than being evaluated based on history, they should be evaluated based on what is justified now. And settlements make both sides less secure, and render peace less and less likely. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-rmelhrilhbiw-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The Settlements are justified based on the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands after 1967 Settlement construction, and in fact the whole settlement of Jews in the West Bank has to be viewed in the wider context of the Middle East conflict as a whole. Jews lived in the West Bank for thousands of years before the creation of Israel, and it was only after the 1948 war when Jews were fully ethnically cleansed from the region. While a Diaspora took place among the Arabs of Israel it was neither as deliberate nor as thorough – a large Arab population remained. No Jews remained in the West Bank under Jordanian rule. As such many of these settlements are not artificial constructions but built on the ruins of pre-1948 Jewish communities. Furthermore, the same 1967 War that brought on the Israeli conquest of the West Bank was also followed by a new round of pogroms against the nearly 800,000 Jews living in Arab countries more than 95% of which were driven into exile in Israel. [1] Israel has not responded by expelling or compensating them at the expense of their own Arabs, as they would be morally justified in doing, but rather has settled them on empty land in the West Bank. Any claim that the Palestinians have an inherent right to property which they do not explicitly own must also take into account Israel’s need to compensate these refugees. [1] Aharoni, Ada, ‘The Forced Migration of Jews From Arab Countries and Peace’, August 2002, Historical Society of Jews from Egypt, | rnational middle east law human rights international law house believes israels west
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cpilhbishioe-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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 | crime policing international law house believes icc should have its own enforcement
States are capable of their own enforcement, even in the difficult cases – for example, Radovan Karadzic was arrested by the Serbian authorities for his trial by the ICTY, and would not necessarily have been arrested faster by an outside force rather than the Serbian police. A large number of states have been pouring resources in to capturing the Lord’s Resistance Army fugitives such as Joseph Kony – if they cannot do capture him, there is no reason to believe that an ICC Police would be able to. Recently the Ugandan Army has been willing to cross borders to chase Kony, so far with little to show for it. [1] [1] Van Woudenberg, Anneke, ‘How to Catch Joseph Kony’, Human Rights Watch, 9 March 2012, |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cpilhbishioe-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: An ICC enforcement is a necessity if there is to be international criminal justice The remit of the ICC is unlike the remit of any national court. It deals exclusively in crimes so unacceptable there is an international consensus behind their illegality and the need for prosecutions. The parties that signed up to the Rome Statute’s reason for the creation of the ICC was “that such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world” the perpetrators of such crimes clearly need to be brought to book, and to do that they need to be apprehended. The same agreement said the signatories were “Resolved to guarantee lasting respect for and the enforcement of international justice” if this is the case then there should be agreement on enabling that enforcement by creating an ICC enforcement arm. Again the Rome statute makes clear that the agreement “shall not be taken as authorizing” intervention by another state. This is why the enforcement needs to be done by a separate international force who could not be considered a threat to any state. [1] Quite simply there is little point in international criminal justice if there is no force to bring the criminals to the court. [1] ‘Preamble’ Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1 July 2002, | crime policing international law house believes icc should have its own enforcement
While the ICC is a multinational body, it is designed to have a respect for individual nations court systems. It is mainly a “backstop” court, it is happy to see nations prosecute those offences – the Rome Statute mandates that they be added to the domestic criminal law. This is the principle of complementarity. As such there is no need for an international force as the enforcement of international criminal law is provided by the member state’s police forces who will catch the criminals that the ICC wishes to prosecute and send them to the court. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cpilhbishioe-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: An ICC Enforcement arm would bring in a higher proportion of defendants in to trial Eight out of the thirty people indicted by the ICC (four in the Darfur situation, including Omar al-Bashir, three Lord’s Resistance Army leaders in Uganda and one in the DR Congo investigation) are still alive and avoiding justice. An in-house enforcement arm would be more effective at capturing indictees than many of the forces of the state parties, as it is likely to be more competent than many of the under-resourced or under-trained national forces. An in house force would be solely focused on capturing the wanted war criminals so would both be focusing resources and much less likely to be sidetracked by other priorities (many of which may be influenced by politics) than national forces. One of the suggested solutions to the failure to capture Joseph Kony and leaders of the LRA is to have greater involvement of peacekeepers; an ICC force would provide the same kind of help. [1] [1] Van Woudenberg, Anneke, ‘How to Catch Joseph Kony’, Human Rights Watch, 9 March 2012, | crime policing international law house believes icc should have its own enforcement
An enforcement arm would still have finite resources. There is no guarantee that an ICC in-house enforcement system would arrest more suspects than the existing system of state bilateral co-operation. This is particularly the case in relation to the most thorny problems the ICC faces – how to catch those who have the backing of their state. An independent force would not enable the ICC to snatch Omar al-Bashir out of Sudan unless the proposal was to create a special forces style force and any such action would have large diplomatic repercussions. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cpilhbishioe-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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, | crime policing international law house believes icc should have its own enforcement
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cpilhbishioe-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: An ICC enforcement arm would be unduly expensive In a climate where the ICC’s budget is determined exclusively by contentious negotiation between states (at a time where the ICC itself has threatened to close down investigations due to a lack of funds [1] ), many of whom are undergoing austerity, an enforcement arm is not the best use of scarce funds when its role can be taken by the state parties. The ICC is already expensive enough – it cost over €100M in 2009. [1] Nzau Musau, “Kenya: ICC Threatens to Drop cases for Lack of Funds”, The Star (Kenya), 2013, | crime policing international law house believes icc should have its own enforcement
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cpilhbishioe-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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 | crime policing international law house believes icc should have its own enforcement
Apart from the visibility due to the diversity of the force the ICC force may well be very similar to national forces in this regard. Often a problem with arresting wanted international criminals is their support in the community – that they have often been claiming to be fighting for. The national government’s enforcement arm may be as unwelcome as the ICC. In such circumstances the ICC at least has the advantage of being a new quantity with a blank slate rather than being known for any excesses, human rights violations or bribery. The ICC force will be able to treat the local populace fairly and win their trust. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cpilhbishioe-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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. | crime policing international law house believes icc should have its own enforcement
Those arguments are similar ones to those used against the ICC. An ICC police force, comprised of officers from individual state and supervised by an independent authority appointed by a similar mechanism to the judges, would use the existing frameworks in place for the use of the ICC. If states are happy to have their nationals indicted for international crimes then it stands to reason that these nations should welcome a force that can enforce such indictments and bring these war criminals to trial. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cpilhbishioe-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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. | crime policing international law house believes icc should have its own enforcement
An ICC police would be able to provide independent assistance to these states to aid those that do not have enough resources. The ICC has a poor track record of capturing suspects. This is not due to a lack of trying by the ICC – in some cases, it is due to the lack of trying of states such as those that have played host to Omar Al-Bashir. While individual states do, and should, have a role to play in enforcement, in some cases they are unwilling or unable to arrest suspects. Just as the ICC is there if a state is unable or unwilling to try an individual, they can have a role if they are unable or unwilling to arrest them. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-tlcplghwfne-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Needle exchanges protect the public Needle exchanges allow drug addicts a convenient and safe place to throw away used needles. This directly protects the public from stray needles that are sometimes put in rubbish bins or left lying around. Specifically this protects children who often don’t know to avoid needles but it also protects sanitation workers and other staff from being accidentally struck by a needle. Further, the families of those who are drug addicts can also be helped. Partners and loved ones are much more likely to come into contact with the drug addict and fluid exchange is possible. Given that this is the case, the benefits of needle exchanges also extend to these people.1 1. Franciscus, Alan. “Needle Exchange - A Matter of Public Health So why is the government playing politics with this ticking time bomb?” Hepatitis Mag, April 2003. | th law crime policing law general house would fund needle exchanges
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-tlcplghwfne-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Needle exchanges prevent the transmission of disease A needle exchange as mentioned in the introduction allows drug users to trade in dirty needles for new ones. This can prevent disease simply by preventing transfer of fluids from one drug user to another. As such, if one drug addict has HIV and has not yet been diagnosed it becomes less likely that he will transmit the disease to another person. Further, many drug addicts fail to even consider the possibility of infection via dirty needles, the mere presence of a needle exchange in the nearby vicinity causes drug addicts to be more aware of the dangers associated with dirty needles. Further, the liberalising effect that needle exchanges have on public opinion can often cause societal change that allows needles to be bought over the counter. This is especially good in targeting drug users who do not wish to reveal that they have an addiction and allows them use of clean needles. To back this up it has been found by some researchers that, there has been a one-third reduction in HIV prevalence in New Haven, Connecticut, after its NEP had been in operation for only 4 months. Researchers found an 18.6% average annual decrease in HIV seroprevalence in cities that had introduced an NEP, compared to an 8.1% annual increase in HIV seroprevalence in cities that had never introduced NEPs. HIV prevalence among NEP attenders in a Canadian city was low, even though high-risk behaviors were common. Injecting drug users in Seattle who had formerly attended an NEP were found to be more likely than non-exchangers to reduce the frequency of injection, to stop injecting altogether, and to remain in drug treatment, while new users of the NEP were five times more likely to enter drug treatment than never-exchangers."1 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 | th law crime policing law general house would fund needle exchanges
Some studies have found that needle exchanges are not related to decreases in HIV transmission. It is theorised that the overall increase in drug use that needle exchanges cause, which is described in the first point of the opposition case, offsets the benefits the exchanges provide in terms of disease prevention. Further, in providing needle exchanges to prevent disease, it is possible that states and people think the problems of drug use are solved and fail to do any more to prevent the problem, which explains the continued deaths of drug addicts due to causes other than infection due to dirty needles.1 1. Noffs, David. “Should Needle Exchange Programmes Be Publically Funded?” Close to Home Online, |
arguana-qrel-test-law-tlcplghwfne-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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, | th law crime policing law general house would fund needle exchanges
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-tlcplghwfne-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Needle exchanges will increase the incidence of drug use Beyond increasing drug use through condoning the practice, needle exchanges also facilitate drug use by gathering all the drug addicts in a single area. This allows drug dealers to operate more efficiently and as such gives them more time to explore new markets for their drugs. As well as this, people are encouraged to keep on taking drugs as they feel the risk to them from doing so has been significantly decreased by the exchange. Given the lower risk, those drug users that are still somewhat rational actors will be more likely to take drugs because of the lower potential harm. Further, in the long run, needle exchanges through these mechanisms make it harder to eradicate drug use entirely in the future. By causing addicts and the public to accept drugs needle exchanges ingrain drugs in society as any removal of the facility in the future will be seen as the state coming down too harshly on drug addicts and can be opposed much more easily.1 1. Lawrence Aaron, “Why a Needle Exchange Programme is a Bad Idea.” RedOrbit. August 26, 2005. | th law crime policing law general house would fund needle exchanges
Most studies indicate that needle exchanges do not increase drug use. This is corroborated by studies in Amsterdam and New Haven, Connecticut. In fact, one programme in San Francisco resulted in decreased drug use in the community owing to the links that were tied with the drug using community. Further reasons for this are also outlined within the third argument on proposition.1 1. "Interventions To Prevent HIV Risk Behaviors". National Institutes of Health, Consensus Development Conference Statement". February 11-13, 1997. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-tlcplghwfne-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Needle exchanges cause crime Needle exchanges gather a large number of drug addicts into a single area. Many drug addicts are forced into criminality because of their addiction. Given that this is true, the needle exchanges serve to concentrate a large number of potential criminals in a small area. Not only does this increase crime in the area itself significantly, what is also manages to do is cause criminals to meet other criminals who they may not have interacted with before. This can either lead to the aforementioned criminals working together and causing more problems, or it can lead to violence between rival criminals and their gangs. Further, the simple gathering of criminals in a single area can also serve to attract other criminals to the same area to possibly reap benefits. This often comes in the form of prostitution, which thrives in areas of high crime and weaker police presence.1 1. Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007. | th law crime policing law general house would fund needle exchanges
It is possible that needle exchanges increase crime in areas. However, needle exchanges serve to allow for the rehabilitation of drug addicts. Whilst there might be greater crime owing to needle exchanges in the short term, in the long term they serve to treat one of the biggest causes of crime in a community. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-tlcplghwfne-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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. | th law crime policing law general house would fund needle exchanges
Needle exchanges do not condone drug use and in fact they actively discourage it. However, it is important to note that drug addicts are not rational actors and given that they are already taking drugs in a very hostile legal environment, it seems that taking a hard line to them is unlikely to have any real affect. What is more likely to work is winning the trust of the addict and then offering them help as and when they need it. Further, the law exists to help those who commit crimes and incarceration exists principally to allow for the rehabilitation of criminals so they may be re-released into society. As such the principal behind the law and punishment is harm reduction and needle exchanges simply exist as an extension of this principle.1 1. Franciscus, Alan. “Needle Exchange - A Matter of Public Health So why is the government playing politics with this ticking time bomb?” Hepatitis Mag, April 2003. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-phwmfri-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The rich are now also deterred Another purpose of fines is to provide a deterrent. If fines are applied at one rate regardless of income, they must be low enough not to be un-payable for those who do not earn much money. Consequently, they are set so low that they fail to have a deterrent effect on the richest in society, who are easily able to afford to break the law. This is especially the case when you consider the sorts of crimes that are punishable by fines, e.g. illicit parking and littering. These crimes have an indirect harm, and thus it is easy for the rich to consider that once they have paid the fine they have paid for the damage done, even though in reality this is not the case.1 1 Gneezy, U., Rustichini, A., 2000. ‘A Fine is a Price’. Journal of Legal Studies., vol. 29 pp1-17 | punishment house would make fines relative income
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-phwmfri-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Rich and poor now face equality of impact of punishment The purpose of a fine is to ensure that the offender faces the consequences of their actions. The extent to which a financial penalty feels like a negative consequence is relative to the amount of income someone has, not to the simple amount that the fine is. That is, if someone earning £200 per week is fined £100, that will feel more severe than a £100 fine would feel to someone earning £2000 per week. Therefore, if you make fines proportional to the income someone has, all people feel the impact of the punishment equally, rather than the poor facing a punishment with a harsher impact on them than on the rich. | punishment house would make fines relative income
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-phwmfri-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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, | punishment house would make fines relative income
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-phwmfri-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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, | punishment house would make fines relative income
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-phwmfri-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Creates the perception that fines are like taxes, rather than a punishment If we detach fines from the crimes committed, people are more likely to see fines as unrelated to justice. Rather, they will see fines as another mechanism by which the government makes money, this will be especially the case if as in New Zealand the money goes into government coffers without being hypothecated.1 This is similar to the way in which some people in the UK see speed cameras as less about preventing speeding, and more about getting money from motorists with one poll showing 49% of people believe they are primarily about revenue raising.2 This is harmful because it decreases the probability of people who deem the fine ‘worth it’ nevertheless abstaining from the criminal act. 1 ‘Frequently Asked Questions’, New Zealand Police, 2 ‘Drivers conflicted over cameras’, IAM Driving Road Safety, 11 August 2010, | punishment house would make fines relative income
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-phwmfri-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A flat rate is more just A fine ought to be proportionate to the severity of the crime committed, not the income of the offender. It is fundamental that the justice system should treat all offenders equally; if two people commit the same crime in the same circumstances but one is richer than the other then they have caused the same amount of harm so should pay the same price for that harm. Having a richer person pay more implies that crimes by the rich are necessarily more harmful to society regardless of what the crime actually is. Further, this system will cause anomalies, where rich people fined for small offences (e.g. littering) will have much larger fines than poorer people fined for more serious offences (e.g. speeding). This will make people question the fairness of the fines, which will negatively impact their relationship with the justice system. | punishment house would make fines relative income
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-hrpepthwuto-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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. | human rights philosophy ethics politics terrorism house would use torture obtain
When battling those who would seek to replace the rule of law and democratic governance with religious decree, it is more important than ever to demonstrate that the principles of a civilised society are paramount. In the light of that reality, for the state to use the very tools of fear and violence that they are fighting against sends out the wrong message. It means, in effect, that nations have put themselves on the same moral level as the terrorist organisations they are fighting. Instead it is important to demonstrate that actions undertaken quite legally are an effective bulwark against terror. Moreover, it is necessary to demonstrate that these values are part of a system of rule of law; that values of justice, fairness and accountability are seen as valuable both by a states’ leaders, but also by arbiters (judges) and its people. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-hrpepthwuto-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: In the event of an imminent attack it is only reasonable to use force to find information If authorities have good reason to believe that there is a realistic threat of a nuclear explosion in downtown Manhattan or Tel Aviv then it is vital that as much information as possible can be gathered as quickly as possible. If that requires pain to be inflicted on an individual to save the lives of millions then it is simply practical to do so. The harm represented by the pain caused to a single individual is outweighed by the possibility that information gathered from a forceful interrogation might save thousands of lives | human rights philosophy ethics politics terrorism house would use torture obtain
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-hrpepthwuto-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Time is of the essence in a crisis. When confronted with extremists who see a virtue in their own death, extraordinary methods may be required. The use of force and fear in enhanced interrogation gives quick results. In the event of a bomb hidden somewhere in Manhattan, it’s vital to have information quickly. Nobody, even the most diehard proponents of enhanced interrogation, would suggest that it is pleasant or should be used on a routine basis; the point is that techniques such as waterboarding are effective and fast. Responding to terrorist threats is something that needs to be dealt with in minutes or hours. Unfortunately, it is in the nature of due process and legal procedure that they trials and questioning take place in a framework of days or weeks. | human rights philosophy ethics politics terrorism house would use torture obtain
The primary difficulty with the use of torture is not one of principle but one of practice – it doesn’t work. You simply have no way of checking whether the information is accurate. By using force or the threat of force, suspects are under pressure to say something- anything- that will stop the pain they are experiencing. However, information acquired this way will not necessarily be true In the light of this, the use of torture actually slows things down the process of investigating and preventing terrorist threats. This is particularly true of terror suspects for whom death has no fear and for whom it may, in fact be a goal. A much safer approach to rooting out terrorist who seek to martyr themselves is old fashioned, and perfectly legal, investigation. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-hrpepthwuto-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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. | human rights philosophy ethics politics terrorism house would use torture obtain
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-hrpepthwuto-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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 | human rights philosophy ethics politics terrorism house would use torture obtain
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-hrpepthwuto-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Allowing torture under any circumstances will allow the prospect of its routine use The advantage of a complete ban on torture is that it leaves no room for doubt, no possibility for confusion, no need to apply personal judgement. Under the status quo, it is simply illegal to use force or the threat of force to solicit information from a suspect, regardless of the charge. The moment that becomes something other than a complete ban then it puts an intolerable pressure on security officials to decide when it is justified and when it is not. The experience of Abu Grahib demonstrates how the use of abusive treatment can become routine, even trivial, all too quickly. If it is acceptable to use torture to prevent mass-murder, then why not murder? If for murder than why not rape? And so on. | human rights philosophy ethics politics terrorism house would use torture obtain
It is perfectly possible to put legal structures in place that allow for judicial overview of the interrogation techniques used. In most Western countries – the most common targets of modern terrorism – there are already legal frameworks for judicial approval of the extension of detention periods and so forth on an emergency basis. The same form of oversight could be used here and exactly the same principle of retrospective appeal could apply to ensure that the capacity was not misused. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-lghwpcctcc-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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 | law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases
A stenographer already records every word spoken during the course of the trial, which already serves to help with potential appeals [1] [2] . Furthermore, appeal court judges rarely interfere with the verdicts of lower courts because they were not present at the original trial. Using a video record to overturn the verdict of a previous court would essentially eradicated the role of a jury; which is to reach a decision based on the fact presented, guided by the judge’s knowledge of the law [3] [4] . Far from making court proceedings more democratic and transparent, using cameras in courtrooms would actually be damaging because it undermines the position of normal people to reach a verdict of ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. In this case, a judge’s choice to hang a new verdict on video information would make the law a very exclusive practice where very few individuals can determine the fates of others, and the role of jury would become irrelevant. [1] In the UK: , accessed 18/08/11 [2] In the US: , accessed 18/08/11 [3] in the UK: , accessed 18/08/11 [4] In the US: , accessed 18/08/11 |
arguana-qrel-test-law-lghwpcctcc-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: People should have a right of access to justice. Given that people are already allowed to watch court proceedings from the public gallery – including the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in the UK [1] , and the Supreme Court in the US [2] – there is little reason why this should not be extended to give better access across the nation to anybody who wants to watch. Those with full-time jobs or who live far away from the courts are currently unfairly limited in this respect, and those who do wish to attend well-publicised trials often have to arrive hours in advance to get a seat. Individuals should not have to give up so much time and money just to be able to watch a democratic proceeding, which is a cornerstone of democratic nations. Given that many closed trials such as the trial of the Guantánamo Bay terrorism suspects [3] have still led to intense media coverage, we would be better off showing the courts to be transparent and just instead of vainly trying to hide everything behind closed doors. [1] , accessed 05/08/11 [2] , accessed 05/08/11 [3] , accessed 19/08/11. | law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases
When people take the time and effort to visit the law courts and watch a case, it is a formal, regulated atmosphere. If this were televised, it would become closer to ‘entertainment’ than to fair, legal proceedings. It becomes a human interest story rather than a legitimate court case, where the focus is on moral retribution rather than fair application of the law. Given that high-profile cases can go on for weeks, or even months, even if you were to broadcast every step of the court case it is likely that viewers would only tune in for the climax of the trial. This means that they would miss important (but perhaps comparatively boring) steps which led to that conclusion; it obscures the whole picture of the trial. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-lghwpcctcc-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Cameras encourage efficiency and high standards. Placing cameras into courtrooms encourages the judiciary and lawyers to increase their efficiency and have high standards of behaviour, because they are aware that it will be carried outside of the courtroom by public viewing. The introductions of cameras to the Houses of Parliament in the UK resulted in significantly improved standards of debate, greater punctuality, and greater attendance of MPs [1] . We can expect this same principle to continue in courtrooms when cameras are put in place. [1] , accessed 06/08/11 | law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases
Putting this kind of pressure on the judiciary and lawyers does not have the same kinds of benefits that it might in the House of Commons. Politicians often focus on, and are expected to uphold, the general interest of the public, which is why having public access to televised debates is an incentive for them to push those interests through as far as possible. However, the rule of law does not always correlate to public opinion. Particularly in high-profile cases, the public may wish to see the accused given the harshest sentence possible; however, this might not be the legally correct sentence to give in those circumstances. Public outrage has been known to tamper with judicial verdicts in places such as India [1] , and is damaging to the principle of a fair trial. [1] , accessed 06/08/11 |
arguana-qrel-test-law-lghwpcctcc-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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 | law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-lghwpcctcc-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Witnesses and jurors could easily become involved in the media coverage of the case and place the trial at jeopardy. Newspaper interviews with witnesses have already caused trials to be cancelled in the past [1] because the judiciary recognises that media coverage can change people’s incentives and warp their priorities. This interference may affect the reliability of the witness’ evidence or the jurors’ verdict. Following the televised trial of O. J. Simpson, several witnesses and jurors gave interviews to the media, or wrote their memoirs of the case [2] . If witnesses and jurors know that their public lives could be affected by how the rest of society perceives them through a court case, they might have an incentive to be more harsh or more lenient; public outrage when the criminal sentence does not match their own interpretations is likely to be laid on those who caused that sentence. This is particularly dangerous for America, where they have trial by jury [3] . Here, the jury has more control over the sentencing of criminals – which obviously becomes a problem if the jury has a vested interest in giving harsh sentences to offenders in order to gain public support. Cameras in court can only encourage witnesses and jurors to distort their true recollection or their opinions in order to profit from the media circus. [1] , accessed 19/08/11 [2] , accessed 19/08/11 [3] , accessed 19/08/11 | law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases
Juror involvement is made less likely by the proposition line that jurors’ faces will be blanked out during the broadcast. For witnesses, the potential to warp and distort the truth already exists; they could be trying to avoid a sentence, or to make sure that justice is done if they have been wronged. They are already emotionally involved. If anything, video footage of the trial could encourage them to temper their responses and make absolutely sure that they are accurate in order to avoid questioning by the media or incrimination for giving an inaccurate statement. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-lghwpcctcc-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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 | law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases
For the families of defendants, incriminating evidence of the defendant comes out anyway – the emotional problems are still there under the status quo, whether or not the trials are televised. For the victims, often a reason why cases are dropped or the victims decide not to testify is the idea that their case is not seen as important, or will not make a difference [1] . Giving a public focus to this cases, and emphasising public outrage against rape, sexual assault and other serious crimes, endorses victims’ rights and makes them see that justice for this crimes is incredibly important. Perhaps this is the best step towards encouraging more people to make a difference by coming forward to testify. [1] , accessed 19/08/11 |
arguana-qrel-test-law-lghwpcctcc-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: This turns court cases into entertainment, rather than legitimate legal proceedings. Several television shows, such as ‘Judge Judy’, assert the style of a legal courtroom [1] . These shows are based on entertainment value from scrutinising the accused and defendant; it would be dangerous to remove a barrier which currently separates genuine legal proceedings from entertainment by televising them. The risk that the public would see them as one and the same is increased by an incident where a man really did believe that the Judge Judy trial was a real trial [2] . The trial of Casey Anthony in Florida, where cameras are allowed, escalated into a media frenzy where legal justice became unimportant in comparison to television ratings [3] . Court cases, then, are at risk of not being taken seriously and used instead for the public to satisfy their curiosity into other peoples’ lives. Televising court cases also immediately undermines some fundamental principles of the justice system, such as rehabilitation. If somebody is convicted of a crime on national television, his or her anonymity or chance of future employment is severely compromised. The rights of the victims, their families, and the defendants should be placed ahead society’s assumed ‘right’ to sensationalist portrayals of the courtroom. [1] , accessed 18/08/11 [2] , accessed 18/08/11 [3] , accessed 19/08/11 | law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases
It is unlikely that people will use court cases as a form of entertainment; if the entire case is televised, then a lot of the case will be ‘boring’ discussion of applying law and legal theory [1] , rather than doling out punishment Judge Judy-style. Even if a few people do try to use it as entertainment, the potential benefit to wider society as they can literally see how their legal system works to protect them outweighs the very small number of people who might group court cases and reality television shows together. Furthermore, if somebody is convicted of a serious crime like murder, their chances of rehabilitation are already slim (and convicts often re-offend), whether it is televised or not [2] . Indeed, some would argue that they have forfeited their right to rehabilitation by committing murder in the first place [3] . However, if they were acquitted of a serious crime on television, future employers could be more likely to accept them as they could see exactly how the court progressed and arrived at that conclusion, rather than having it shrouded in mystery which could breed suspicion. [1] Transcript of a court case: , accessed 18/08/11 [2] , accessed 19/08/11 [3] , accessed 19/08/11 |
arguana-qrel-test-law-sdfclhrppph-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Protection of Minors We need to protect minors (those under the age of majority) from exposure to obscene, offensive or potentially damaging materials. While this would be a restriction on the freedom of speech it should be something that the government is responsible for and we would all agree needs some kind of restriction or regulation. | speech debate free challenge law human rights philosophy political philosophy house
Arguments that invoke censorship of materials for minors are just that - arguments for the censorship of materials for minors. They do not concede the general principal that censorship is good because until the age of majority the state has a duty to respect (and to take limited measures to ensure others respect) the parental responsibility of those bringing up children. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-sdfclhrppph-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." [1] Shouting fire in a crowded cinema when there is no fire, and you know it, is wrong because doing so creates a clear and present danger of harm to others. Likewise, in the US (and many other countries) there is no protection for ‘false commercial speech’ (i.e. misrepresentation) and the contents of adverts can be regulated in order to ensure that they are truthful and do not deceive consumers. [2] On that basis, restrictions can be placed on how tobacco products may be advertised, and people may be prevented from promoting illegal and fraudulent tax advice. [1] U.S. Supreme Court, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 1919, [2] U.S. Supreme Court, Lorillard Tobacco Co v Reilly, AG of Massachusetts, 533 U.S. 525, 200 | speech debate free challenge law human rights philosophy political philosophy house
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-sdfclhrppph-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It may be necessary in the interests of national security The Government must protect its citizens from foreign enemies and internal enemies - thus freedom of speech can be acceptably curtailed during times of war in order to prevent propaganda and spying which might undermine the national interest. This has happened in almost all states during times of war, during the second world war the United States even had a government department dedicated to it; The Office of Censorship. [1] [1] Hanyok, Robert J., ‘Secrets of Victory: The Office of Censorship and The American Press and Radio in World War II’, Studies in Intelligence, Vol 46, No. 3, | speech debate free challenge law human rights philosophy political philosophy house
The ends do not justify the means. The government may well wish to suppress publication of information that would be prejudicial to its success in the next elections or its war campaign, but it’s in the public interest to know about their dirty dealings or illegal activities. Moreover secrecy in the name of security often leads to injustice; the rendition of British residents and secret evidence given at control order hearings are but a couple of examples. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-sdfclhrppph-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Holocaust Denial Speech acts lead to physical acts. Thus pornography, hate speech and political polemic are causally linked to rape, hate crimes, and insurrection. Both scientific creationism and Holocaust denial have serious, and dangerous, hidden agendas. Deniers of the Nanjing Massacre believe that the Japanese did nothing wrong in the Second World War and continue to claim that it was a war of liberation against western colonialism - feeding Japanese militarism today. Holocaust deniers, in claiming that a Jewish conspiracy is responsible for the widespread belief that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, are closely allied to anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism. We should not allow such views the legitimacy which being debated gives them. | speech debate free challenge law human rights philosophy political philosophy house
Society is self-regulating. The link between speech acts and physical acts is a false one - people who commit hate crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography but not necessarily the other way around. Viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are therefore not incited to commit anything they otherwise would not do. If the advocates of these views have hidden agendas, all the more reason to expose them in public. The fact that Holocaust denial leads to neo-Nazism will, for most people, be one more compelling argument against it; creationism’s necessarily literalistic approach to scripture can easily be shown to be ridiculous. Again, the truth has nothing to fear, and the evil implications of falsehood should not be covered up by refusing to engage with it. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-sdfclhrppph-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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. | speech debate free challenge law human rights philosophy political philosophy house
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-sdfclhrppph-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Free speech allows challenges to orthodox beliefs Free speech is not merely a ‘nice thing to have’, it is a mechanism which brings real, tangible benefits to society by allowing people to challenge orthodoxy. States that do not allow orthodox beliefs to be challenged stagnate and decline. Reducing restrictions on free speech to ‘special exceptions’ frustrates the whole point because it is precisely those special exceptions where established truth needs to be challenged. This is not restricted to matters of pure opinion – the modern scientific process relies upon professionals being able to vehemently disagree on matters of crucial fact. “Real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge.” [1] [1] Sarewitz, Daniel, ‘The voice of science: let’s agree to disagree’, Nature, Vol 487, No.7, 5 October 2011, | speech debate free challenge law human rights philosophy political philosophy house
Society is entitled to define itself on certain issues – otherwise what does it stand for? Community is only possible among like-minded individuals. It is likewise entitled to tell those who refuse to accept the consensus on those issues to ‘lump it or leave it’. It is also absurd to suggest that all challenges to orthodoxy are legitimate. Denial of atrocities is usually a mask for racial intolerance. Denial of established scientific truths in the public world is not usually about progress but rather about ignoring the evidence to promote theologically based worldviews. Society has a vested interest in suppressing those movements. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-tahglcphsld-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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, | th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs
Prohibition may not be working in the UK but that does not mean that prohibition is not working everywhere. In the US, the Drug Enforcement Agency states that “Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. We’ve reduced cocaine use by an astounding 70% during the last 15 years.” [1] [1] U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, ‘Fact 1: We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts’, |
arguana-qrel-test-law-tahglcphsld-pro06b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The law is hypocritical In most countries where drugs are illegal, tobacco and alcohol, which arguably have equally devastating consequences in society, are legal. In a UK study, alcohol was shown to have the worst effects of any drug, yet the current law recognises that people should be able to choose whether they drink or not. [1] The same should be true of drugs. [1] Professor David Nutt, ‘Drug Harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis’, The Lancet, Vol 376, Issue 9752, pp. 1558-1565, 6th November 2010, | th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-tahglcphsld-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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, | th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-tahglcphsld-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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. | th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs
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, |
arguana-qrel-test-law-tahglcphsld-pro07b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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 - | th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs
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’, |
arguana-qrel-test-law-tahglcphsld-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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, | th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs
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, |
arguana-qrel-test-law-tahglcphsld-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: 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, | th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs
Drugs affect how people think, and they take away their ability to control their actions rationally, and so people on drugs are more likely to commit crimes. The US Drug Enforcement Administration states, “Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.” [1] [1] U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, ‘Summary of the Top Ten Facts on Legalization’, 2010, |
arguana-qrel-test-law-tahglcphsld-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: More people will take drugs if they are legal Considering that drug use has so many negative consequences, it would be disastrous to have it increase. However, the free availability of drugs once they are legal will make it far easier for individuals to buy and use them. In most cases, under 1% of the population of OECD countries regularly use illegal drugs; many more drink alcohol or smoke tobacco. [1] This must at least partly to do with the illegality. Indeed, in an Australian survey, 29% of those who had never used cannabis cited the illegality of the substance as their reason for never using the drug, while 19% of those who had ceased use of cannabis cited its illegality as their reason. [2] [1] UN Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report 2009, [2] NSW Bureau of Crime and Statistics, ‘Does Prohibition Deter Cannabis use?’, 23 August 2001, $file/mr_cjb58.pdf | th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs
When drugs are illegal, this does not stop people from using them. A Canadian report on the matter concluded, "The licit or illicit status of substances has little impact on their use." [1] In addition, even though drugs are illegal, it is not hard to access them. In a Spanish survey, 92.9% of Spanish students said that it was very easy to access illegal drugs – even though only 11.6% used cannabis, which was the most used. [2] Even using the survey quoted by opposition, it is clear that the majority of people surveyed did not view the illegality of cannabis as a reason not to use it. [1] Parliament of Canada House of Commons, Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs, report issued November, 2002, [2] Eurocare, ‘92.9 % of Spanish students say that access to drugs is very easy’, 26 March 2010, |
arguana-qrel-test-law-tahglcphsld-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Drugs will either be too cheap or too expensive Low prices for drugs will hugely increase consumption of drugs, amongst all groups - addicts, previously casual users, and those who were not previously users. If drug provision is strictly regulated, an illegal black market may remain. | th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs
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. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-tahglcphsld-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Drugs are dangerous, and the governement should discourage its use The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens; if a substance will do people and society significant harm, then that substance should be banned. There is no such thing as a safe form of a drug. Legalization can only make drugs purer, and therefore perhaps more deadly and addictive. Many illegal drugs are closely related to potentially dangerous medicines, whose prescription is tightly restricted to trained professionals, but the proposition would effectively be allowing anyone to take anything they wished regardless of the known medical dangers. However entrenched in modern culture drugs may be, legalising them will only make them appear more acceptable. The state has a duty to send out the right message, and its health campaigns will be fundamentally undermined by the suggestion that drugs are harmless, which is what will be understood from their legalisation – just like when cannabis was downgraded in the UK. | th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs
Many things that can be dangerous are legal, from drugs such as alcohol, to activities such as skydiving, or even rugby. However, millions of people are able to drink or play sports without harming themselves or society. It would seem draconian and extremely paternalistic for the government to ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous; instead, they should educate people about the dangers, but trust them to make decisions about their own lives. The State has no authority to force its own morality on the general populace unless these drugs can be proven to harm others. The State is the facilitator of the voters’ desires in a democracy. So, a State enforced, morality goes against the obligations of the State to its people. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cppshbcjsfm-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Rehabilitation Has Greater Regard For the Offender Rehabilitation has another important value – it recognises the reality of social inequity. To say that some offenders need help to be rehabilitated is to accept the idea that circumstances can constrain, if not compel, and lead to criminality; it admits that we can help unfortunate persons who have been overcome by their circumstance. It rejects the idea that individuals, regardless of their position in the social order, exercise equal freedom in deciding whether to commit a crime, and should be punished equally according to their offence, irrespective of their social backgrounds. Prisons are little more than schools of crime if there aren't any rehabilitation programs. Prisons isolate offenders from their families and friends so that when they are released their social networks tend to be made up largely of those whom they met in prison. As well as sharing ideas, prisoners may validate each others’ criminal activity. Employers are less willing to employ those who have been to prison. Such circumstances may reduce the options available to past offenders and make future criminal behaviour more likely. Rehabilitation becomes more difficult. In addition, rates of self-harm and abuse are alarmingly high within both men’s and women’s prisons. In 2006 alone, there were 11,503 attempts by women to self-harm in British prisons. [1] This suggests that imprisoning offenders unnecessarily is harmful both for the offenders themselves and for society as a whole. [1] Women in Prison. Statistics. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Women in Prison . | crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more
Crime is not pathology, it is not the product of circumstance, and it is certainly not the product of coincidence. As the case of Husng Guangyu shows, despite being Chinas richest man he still committed crimes involving illegal business dealing, insider trading and bribery and was then sentenced to 14 years. This was rightly given in order as a just punishment for the cost of the crimes he had committed and to deter others from such practices. [1] Crime is the result of choices made by the individual, and therefore the justice system must condemn those choices when they violate society’s rules. To say otherwise (i.e. to say that criminals are merely the product of their unfortunate circumstances) would be an insult to human autonomy - the liberalist idea that our judicial system is based on, in saying that individuals are given the power to make their own decisions freely and this should be interfered with in as little as possible. It would be to deny the possibility of human actors making good decisions in the face of hardship. Retributivism alone best recognises the offender’s status as a moral agent, by asking that he take responsibility for what he has done, rather than to make excuses for it. It appeals to an inherent sense of right and wrong, and in this way is the most respectful to humanity because it recognises that persons are indeed fundamentally capable of moral deliberation, no matter what their personal circumstances are. [1] Jingqiong, Wang and Zhu Zhe, ‘Former richest man gets 14 years in prison’, China Daily, 19 May 2010. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cppshbcjsfm-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Rehabilitation Is A Better General Justifying Aim for Punishment Rehabilitation is the most valuable ideological justification for imprisonment, for it alone promotes the humanising belief in the notion that offenders can be saved and not simply punished. Desert (retributive) theory, on the other hand, sees punishment as an end in itself, in other words, punishment for punishment’s sake. This has no place in any enlightened society. An example can be taken from the aftermath of the London rioters, where 170 riot offenders under 18 are now in custody without firstly understanding the causes of the riots nor the reasons of why these people offended. [1] The rehabilitative ideal does not ignore society and the victim. In fact it is because retribution places such great value on the prisoner’s rights that it tries so hard to change the offender and prevent his reoffending. By seeking to reduce reoffending and to reduce crime, it seeks constructively to promote the safety of the public, and to protect individuals from the victimisation of crime. The public agrees; a 2008 poll of British citizens found 82% ‘thought rehabilitation was as important, or more important than punishment as a criterion when sentencing criminals’. [2] Such a model of punishment is therefore a more enlightened approach in a modern day criminal justice system. Our current system which focuses more on retribution does not have the possibility of seeking to prevent reoffending by curing the offender of their desire to reoffend. [1] Malik, Shiv, ‘UK riots cause 8% rise in jailed children’, guardian.co.uk, 8 September 2011. [2] Directgov. Rehabilitation versus punishment - judge for yourself. 1 July 2008 . | crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more
A sanction should not merely be helpful – it should treat the offending conduct as wrong. The purpose of punishment is to show disapproval for the offender’s wrongdoing, and to clearly condemn his criminal actions. This is what was and is being done with the offenders of the August riots, the most common example is of an the two men who attempted to organise riots using Facebook, both were sentenced to four years and shows societies disgust in the events of the riots and acts as a message for future. [1] A prison sentence is as much a punishment for the offender as a symbol of the reaction of society. Society creates law as an expression of the type of society we are aiming to create. This is why we punish; we punish to censure (retribution), we do not punish merely to help a person change for the better (rehabilitation). We still have to punish a robber or a murderer, even if he is truly sorry and even if he would really, really never offend again and even if we could somehow tell that for certain. This is because justice, and not rehabilitation, makes sense as the justification for punishment. Why is justice and censure (‘retribution’) so important? Because unless the criminal justice system responds to persons who have violated society’s rules by communicating, through punishment, the censure of that offending conduct, the system will fail to show society that it takes its own rules (and the breach of them) seriously. There are other important reasons as well: such as to convey to victims the acknowledgement that they have been wronged. Punishment, in other words, may be justified by the aim of achieving ‘justice’ and ‘desert’, and not by the aim of rehabilitation. [1] Bowcott, Owen, Haroon Siddique and Andrew Sparrow, ‘Facebook cases trigger criticism of ‘disproportionate’ riot sentences’, guardian.co.uk, 17 August 2011 . |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cppshbcjsfm-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Rehabilitation Doesn’t Actually Work While some rehabilitative programmes work with some offenders (those who would probably change by themselves anyway), most do not. Many programs cannot overcome, or even appreciably reduce, the powerful tendency for offenders to continue in criminal behaviour. In Britain, where rehabilitation has long been purported to stop re-offending, 58 per cent of those over-21 find themselves in trouble with the law within two years of release. [1] The rehabilitation programs simply do not work. ‘Rehabilitation’ is therefore a false promise – and the danger with such an illusory and impossible goal is that it is used as a front to justify keeping offenders locked up for longer than they deserve and sometimes even indefinitely (‘if we keep him here longer maybe he might change’). We cannot justify passing any heavier or more onerous a sentence on a person in the name of “rehabilitation” if “rehabilitation” does not work. [1] Stanford, P., ‘The road to redemption: Does the rehabilitation of prisoners work?’, The Independent, 23 August 2007. | crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more
If we had the opportunity to stop some offenders re-offending why do we not seize this opportunity? Rehabilitative programs provide such an opportunity. Such programs include cognitive-behavioural programs (say, trying to get a violent offender to think and reach differently to potential ‘trigger’ situations), pro-social modelling programmes, and some sex-offender treatment programs. Of course, certain styles will suit some better than others, but this is someone that will have to determined case by case. As some methods with work better than others depending on attitudes, values etc. The most credible research (done by a technique called meta-analysis) demonstrates that the net effect of treatment is, on average, a positive reduction of overall recidivism (reoffending) rates of between 10% and 12%, which would promote a reduction in crime that is, by criminal standards, massive. Rehabilitation is a concept. It is not a definite technique whose effectiveness can be precisely measured. So yes some forms of rehabilitation may not work, others however might. What the opposition to this argues is what we've deemed rehabilitation is what we will utiize going forward. However, this is illogical; as we speak, new methods of rehabilitation could be concocted. Such an indefinite ideal cannot be proven as ineffective. For example, if somebody proves that high-speel monorail transportation is ineffective, this does not mean that transportation is absolutely and fundamentally flawed. One simply cannot disprove an infinite set of hypotheses. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cppshbcjsfm-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Rehabilitation Constitutes an Unjustifiable Further Expense The evidence from all over the world suggests that recidivism rates are difficult to reduce and that some offenders just can’t be rehabilitated. It therefore makes economic sense to cut all rehabilitation programs and concentrate on ensuring that prisoners serve the time they deserve for their crimes and are kept off the streets where they are bound to re-offend. As it can be seen that some deserving of a longer sentence only receive short sentences due to lack of time and space and some who have committed shorter sentences are given long sentences aimed at making a point or sending a message. Currently, the government will continue to be gambling tax payers’ money on programs that will not give anything back into the society that it took from. Britain spends £45,000 a year on each of its prisoners and yet 50% will go on to re-offend, ‘which translates into a dead investment of £2 billion annually. [1] Rehabilitation programs should be scrapped and taxpayers asked only to pay the bare minimum to keep offenders off the streets. They can’t harm society if they are behind bars. [1] Bois, N. D., ‘Retribution and Rehabilitation: A Modern Conservative Justice Policy’. Dale & Co. 20 July 2011. | crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more
Philosopher Peter Landry believes that it takes a whole group of specialists to determine what kind of punishment to mete out to criminals. [1] There is no hard and fast rule. Money spent on rehabilitation may cost a lot, but is well worth it, when you consider cuts to the rate of reoffending, leading to reduced expense related to those who reoffend and less crowded prisons. In Britain, it costs £140,000 a year to jail a young criminal, imagine if that money was spent on his or her rehabilitation instead? [2] Furthermore, in America, where measures like the ‘three-strike policy’ were introduced and rehabilitation discouraged, ‘more than four out of ten adult American offenders still return to prison within three years of their release’. [3] Retribution simply does not work, and it is certainly not saving the government any money. [1] Landry, P. ‘On The Theory of Punishment’. Blupete, 2011 . [2] Doyle, J., ‘£140,000: the annual cost of jailing a young criminal’. The Guardian, 1 March 2010. [3] Pew Center on the States. State of Recidivism. The Pew Charitable Trusts. 2011, Washington, D.C., P.2. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cppshbcjsfm-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: How Would One Know a System of Rehabilitation Is Really Working The question “does it work” must be joined by the second question: “even if it does work, how can you tell, with each individual offender, when it has worked?” How would we check if this system is really working? Tagging prisoners? Free counselling for the prisoner for the rest of their life? These measures would require huge administration costs and then the question follows would it even be feasible to enforce such a system? The root of criminality exists before exposure to the prison system; otherwise criminals would have no reason to be there in the first place. What may be more sensible is to analyse the root causes of what makes criminals offend in the first instance and introduce reform to counteract it, for example the economic crisis. [1] Some have cited the education system as failing to instil a sense of morality in people. Others suggest that a lack of welfare leads individuals to lose faith in society and therefore be unwilling to follow the law. Assuming that the right time to change people’s outlook on society is after they have offended is naïve – criminal urges are better ‘nipped in the bud’. It could be argued that criminal mentalities are inherent within certain individuals, either due to their inborn psyche or their upbringing. If one accepts this, then basic rehabilitation into society is going to do little to stop re-offending, whereas incarceration will keep them in a position where they cannot offend. Allowing them easy passage back into the world, with minimal supervision, could provide a gateway for them to commit more serious crimes. [1] Dodd, Vikram, ‘Police face years of public disorder, former Met chief warns’, guardian.co.uk, 6 December 2011. | crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more
The expense of re-offenders re-entering the system is also an expense that our prison system cannot afford. A system such as counselling for released prisoners would prove to be inexpensive when weighed against the benefits of decreased crime, and all the costs involved in that (public damage, judicial costs and prison costs). Given that many organisations work in rehabilitation programs in prisons for very little, if any, payment such a system could easily be established for counselling. A complete system of rehabilitation and post-release counselling, to access these programs, should be paired with increased awareness programs in schools and welfare support. However, this system of combating crime is not complete without a comprehensive system of rehabilitation. If we truly want to protect society and reform criminals then we must invest more time, effort and funding into a system that can achieve this. Incarceration on its own is not working and it is time for change. An addition to the rehabilitation programme was aired on the UK television in November 2011, a new scheme where the offender meets their victim(s) in order to understand their actions have consequences. This type of programme can show visible changes or responses of the offenders as they agree to talk about their feelings and show remorse. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-cppshbcjsfm-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Rehabilitation Does Not Serve The Needs of Society The primary goal of our criminal justice system is to remove offenders from general society and protect law abiding citizens. Many criminals are repeat offenders and rehabilitation can be a long and expensive process. In Jamaica, police claim repeat offenders are responsible for over 80% of local crime despite rehabilitation programmes in prisons. [1] Ideally therefore, retribution and rehabilitation should work hand in hand to protect citizens in the short and long term. There are some successful examples of this happening, where prisons encourage inmates to take part in group activities such as football. Some prisons have started cooking programmes where inmates learn to cook in a professional environment and leave with a qualification. However the first priority is the removal of the convicted criminal from society in order to protect the innocent. Rehabilitation should be a secondary concern. The primary concern of the criminal justice system should be the protection of the non-guilty parties. The needs of society are therefore met by the immediate removal of the offender. In addition a more retributive approach serves society through the message it conveys. Most modern defences of retribution would emphasize its role in reinforcing the moral values of society and expressing the public's outrage at certain crimes. Rehabilitation therefore weakens the strong message of disgust as to the offender’s actions that a traditional prison sentence symbolises and the deterrent that it thus provides. [1] Chang, K. O. ‘Lock up repeat offenders for life’. Jamaica Gleaner, 17 September 2006 . | crime policing punishment society house believes criminal justice should focus more
The needs of society are not being met by those who reoffend due to lack of rehabilitation. The fact that two thirds of offenders subsequently re-offend with two years [1] suggests that the prison system does little to encourage people to stay on the right side of the law. Clearly, the threat of prison is not enough alone and needs to be supplemented by other schemes. Prisons can provide an opportunity to develop important skills: it is especially clear in the case of non-violent offenders that criminal behaviour often stems from a perceived lack of alternatives. Offenders often lack educational qualifications and skills. Prisons can provide an opportunity to develop necessary skills for future employment through the provision of courses and education. The UK offers courses in bricklaying, hairdressing, gardening and teaching sport and fitness. [2] These people can then contribute back into society rather than a purely retributive model which just takes from a system. [3] [1] Souper, M., ‘Principles of sentencing – reoffending rates’, Sixth Form Law . [2] Directgov, ‘Education, training and working in prison’ . [3] Jonathan Aitken wrote an opinion column for ‘The Independent’ website in which he criticised the current legal setup for criminal prosecution and suggested that reforming the system of rehabilitation in the UK would help to reduce rates of re-offending. This if of the greatest importance not only to the individual but for the safety of society. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-lghbacpsba-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It blocks a significant amount of evidence A system of just law is not based on opinions or ideologies. It is about finding evidence and using that evidence to prove or disprove either to 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal cases or 'on the balance of probabilities' for civil and commercial matters. The burden is on the importance of the evidence. It does not make sense for a legal system to on one hand place so much emphasis on evidence and lock away documents which will contain a vast array of empirical evidence with the other. Instead, attorney-client privilege should be abolished and all evidence should be in justices domain in order to ensure that the law achieves a just result. | law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished
If it were the case that legal advice were not privileged people would not tell their attorneys the full truth and therefore such evidence would not exist anyway. The removal of Attorney-Client Privilege would only remove such evidence from the forum. This would lead to a further distorted system whereby Attorneys are arguing upon the false representations made to them by their clients. This provides even less evidence of truth than a system which includes Attorney-Client Privilege. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-lghbacpsba-pro05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Attorney client privilege need not be sacrosanct in all situations Most obviously it seems unnecessary for there to be attorney client privilege when the defendant’s interests cannot be adversely affected. For example when the confidential information just does not incriminate the client himself but it might clear somebody else, or when the client is dead. Few people will be discouraged from being candid with their lawyers if there is merely the possibility that the communications may be disclosed after their death. In addition there are situations where the client’s interest may indeed be hurt but where this should be outweighed by some other very important public interest. In other words perhaps there should be ‘necessity’ or ‘public interest’ or ‘in the interests of justice’ balancing exceptions to the privilege. This would be the case when public safety is at risk, for example if the client holds some very vital information but is not willing to disclose it to anyone other than his lawyer. In such cases the courts should weigh up and balance the client’s interests against society’s and make the decision accordingly rather than rigidly sticking to attorney-client privilege. | law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished
It is very unusual to have a case where it would be certain that disclosure would in no way affect the client. Clients want confidentiality for a wide variety of reasons, not only for reasons connected to personal criminal liability. Even if these confidences are not any sort of admission of criminal wrongdoing, they may nonetheless be matters that the client, for one reason or another, would not wish divulged. Abolishing the privilege not only violates a person’s right to privacy, but a person who knows that his communications may be later revealed (even after his death, or even with ‘use immunity’) may well decide that it is better not to go to a lawyer in the first place – in other words, leading to an access to justice problem. This becomes even more of a problem if the privilege may be overridden when it is in the public interest as the client is not going to know when this may be considered to be the case. Better to keep the information to him/herself rather than opening the possibility that it may be used ‘in the public interest’ |
arguana-qrel-test-law-lghbacpsba-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It makes it more likely that attorneys will lie for their clients If communications between an attorney and their client are confidential, then it allows for lies to be put forward to the court in order to defend someone who is guilty. In the case of a criminal matter, it could mean that even though a defendant has stated they are guilty to their attorney, they will not be found to be guilty. Every attorney wants to win their case, and if they are likely to conceal the confession of their client if it means their client will be released. As the communication is confidential, such confession will not be informed to the court and the attorney would not be exposed for their lies. The confidential nature of the communications between attorney and client open the possibility for a system of justice based upon lies. This is not just and so the Attorney-Client Privilege should be abolished. | law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished
It is a breach of a fundamental rule of an attorney's professional conduct rules to lie to the courts. In England and Wales the risk of Attorney's lying has been catered for by the Rule 11.01 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct. This rule makes it a serious breach of the conduct rules to lie to or knowingly deceive the courts; as witness statements and police interviews are presented in courts as evidence these are also included. [1] This means that a solicitor is not allowed to put forward or allow to be put forward any information to be adduced to the court which is incorrect. The consequences for a solicitor are high – they are liable to have their professional license revoked. Given the high consequences, a solicitor would not be willing to risk it and will therefore not be willing to lie for their client to the court. [1] Rule 11: Litigation and advocacy, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007, accessed 18/5/11 |
arguana-qrel-test-law-lghbacpsba-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It places excessive moral burden on solicitors With the attorney-client privilege in place, there is an excessive burden on the solicitor to cope with any information their client may give to them on a confidential basis. This means they have to deal with the information alone. This is an excessive moral burden for any individual to have and should not be justified on the basis that a solicitor is there to advance the interests of their client. It should not be the solicitors role to deal with moral conflicts alone. | law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished
The privilege that subsists between solicitors and their clients is well documented. Therefore, when people go about becoming solicitors they go into it knowing the potential moral pitfalls. Having entered the career they accept the moral burden and should seek to comply with the Solicitors Code of Conduct. In addition, the moral burden is mitigated by those such rules. It is stated that in exceptional circumstances, situations involving children or the potential serious bodily harm on any individual the duty of confidentiality can be departed from. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-lghbacpsba-pro04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The principle behind attorney-client privilege is declining in relevance One of the principles behind allowing communications between a solicitor and their client to be privileged is that a solicitor is independent of their client and so will not breach laws themselves in order to attain their clients objectives. However, after the recession of 2008 and the Legal Services Act 2007 the position of in house lawyer is more prevalent [1] . In house lawyers are not financially independent. They are in fact employees of their 'client'. This eradicates the principle behind client-attorney privilege and therefore the privilege itself is now irrelevant and should be eradicated. [1] In-house counsel on the rise, New Law Journal, 28 April 2010, accessed 18/05/11 | law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished
This does not mean that client-attorney privilege should be done away with altogether. When it comes to European law and their investigations under the Treaty of Lisbon for uncompetitive practices, they do not count in house lawyer communications as privileged [1] [1] Akzo Nobel Chemicals Limited C-550/07 accessed 18/05/11 |
arguana-qrel-test-law-lghbacpsba-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It better enables Attorneys to advance their client's case An attorney's main duty is owed to their client. Under Rule 1.04 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct a solicitor “must act in the best interests of each client”. [1] It is part of the adversarial system that we have that two opposing parties in litigation argue for their best interests. The whole working of the adversarial system of justice is that each party knows the facts but argues the facts that most support their case. To take away client-attorney privilege is to undermine this way of achieving justice. [1] Rule 1: Core duties, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007, accessed 18/05/11 | law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished
All this shows is that our 'adversarial system' is flawed. Rather than each party trying to pull the wool over the courts eyes and only see their version of the facts surely the system of justice would operate better if each attorney had the duty to the court in finding the truth. Perhaps it is for this reason that mediation is often seen as the better way to solve disputes. In mediation, the parties are each trying to reach an out of court settlement that balances both of their needs. Justice would be achieved more easily in this mediation setting if the client-attorney privilege did not apply. Solicitors then would truly be looking to advance justice, not the clients best interests. Justice is supposed to be unbiased in this regard. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-lghbacpsba-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: Client-Attorney Privilege is already qualified appropriately In exceptional circumstances, solicitors are told that they may depart from the rule of confidentiality contained in Rule 4 of the Solicitors' Code of conduct. Note 9 states that there are some regulatory bodies that are entitled to be informed of apparently confidential client communications. [1] In cases of suspected money laundering, solicitors have a duty under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 [2] to inform relevant bodies of any suspected money laundering or any handling of the proceeds of crime. This means that there is flexibility in the rule of client confidentiality and client-attorney privilege which allows for justice to take its course in serious circumstances. [1] Rule 4: Confidentiality and disclosure, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007, accessed 18/05/11 [2] The Money Laundering Regulations 2007, legislation.gov.uk, No2157, 2007, | law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished
The circumstances under which Note 9 allows such a break in the rule of client-attorney privilege is for the HM Revenue and other bodies that act for the benefit of the Government. It is rather archaic that a principle such as that of attorney-client privilege is loosened only for bodies that act for the benefit of the Government. This does not show that attorney-Client privilege is necessary but that it is not. If the Government is willing to do away with it for their monetary benefit, why can we not do away with it in the interest of justice for society? There should be a system that encourages the adversarial system, and attorney/client privilege but yet allows a variety of circumstances to override this principle, such as public interest and public security. These principles are often used to justify potential Human Rights breaches, so we should also be able to use them to justify the breach of attorney/client privilege. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-lghbacpsba-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It supports the principle that everyone is entitled to a defence In criminal, civil or commercial matters, it is important that everyone has equal access to the law. This ensures a fair and just system. In order to facilitate this principle, even those in the wrong need to know that what they say to their legal representative will not be used against them at a later date. It is this principle that provides equality in the court room and therefore the principle of client attorney privilege needs to be maintained. | law general house believes attorney client privilege should be abolished
Surely the best way to ensure justice is to let the truth be known. By allowing the communication between an attorney and their client to be privileged, the system is catering for a system of arbitrary loopholes and cleverly worded arguments. These are the tools that a solicitor/ attorney would have in order to protect the interests of their client in the face of information they may not wish to divulge to the opponent. This only caters for an adversarial system whereby two parties oppose each other and they each have lawyers to assist them. Surely a better system would be one that encouraged open communication of the truth in order for the court to establish the most just outcome. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-hrilpgwhwr-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The ICC offers justice to victims of war crimes. The ICC offers a multilateral means by which international law can be brought to bear on the perpetrators of war crimes. As Amnesty International argues, 'the ICC ensures that those who commit serious human rights violations are held accountable. Justice helps promote lasting peace, enables victims to rebuild their lives and sends a strong message that perpetrators of serious international crimes will not go unpunished'. Furthermore, and for the first time, the ICC has the power to order a criminal to pay reparations to a victim who has suffered as a result of their crimes. Such reparations may include restitution, indemnification and rehabilitation. Judges are able to order such reparations whether the victims have been able to apply for them or not. Though reparations will often not be sufficient on their own for lasting peace, they are a step in the right direction and only made possible by the establishment of the ICC. | human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise
The ICC does not offer lasting peace to victims, but can instead re-open old wounds. 'It is by no means clear that 'justice' as defined by the Court and Prosecutor is always consistent with the attainable political resolution of serious political and military disputes' argues John Bolton. The ICC deals with individual criminals and specific crimes in a vacuum, it is unable to appreciate the, albeit paradoxical, notion that it may be in the best interests of the resolution of conflict for the perpetrators to go unpunished and victims to forego reparations. 'Circumstances differ, and circumstances matter'1 the ICC in offering lasting peace to victims of war crimes is unable to weigh the circumstances in the manner of an ad hoc tribunal tailored to the specific conflict. 1 Bolton, J. (2002, November 12). The United States and the International Criminal Court. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from |
arguana-qrel-test-law-hrilpgwhwr-pro01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The ICC allows for the prosecution of war criminals. Law-abiding states like the United States that have yet to ratify the ICC should have nothing to fear if they behave lawfully. The Prosecutor of the ICC is only concerned with the most grave offences and it defies belief that the US would approve a strategy of genocide or systematic mass violations of human rights that could attract the jurisdiction of the ICC. Further, the discretion of the Prosecutor is not unchecked. The Statute requires that the approval of three judges sitting in a pre-trial chamber be obtained before an arrest warrant can be issued or proceedings initiated. Moreover, there is no harm to the interests of the US in being subjected to a mere preliminary investigation. In fact, it is preferable that spurious accusations are briefly examined and shown to be baseless, than that these accusations be allowed to raise doubts about the credibility of a State's actions and the impartiality of the Tribunal in question. The US acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Prosecutor of the ICTY is evident ; the US troops forming part of the KFOR peacekeeping force in Kosovo could equally be subject to investigation and prosecution by the ICTY. The US is prepared for its forces to operate under the scrutiny of the ICTY since it reasonably does not expect its members to commit the very crimes they are deployed to prevent. | human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise
The ICC's ability to prosecute war criminals is both overstated and simplistic. It has no force of its own, and must rely on its member states to hand over criminals wanted for prosecution. This leads to cases like that of Serbia, where wanted war criminals like Ratko Mladic are believed to have been hidden with the complicity of the regime until finally handed over in 2011. The absence of a force or any coercive means to bring suspects to trial also leads to situations like that in Libya, whereby Colonel Gaddafi is wanted by the ICC but the prosecution's case is germane if he manages his grip on power. Furthermore, it relies on external funding to operate, and can only sustain cases so long as financial support exists to see them through. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-hrilpgwhwr-pro03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The deterrent effect of the Court ensures wide-spread and equal adherence to international law. Upon signing the Rome Statute in 1996, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that 'the establishment of the Court is still a gift of hope to future generations, and a giant step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law'1. Such statements demonstrate the impact the Court could potentially have, as a body that simultaneously cherishes sovereignty and protects national courts whilst offering a means by which criminals in states unable or unwilling to prosecute will still be brought to justice. As the natural and permanent heir to the process started at Nuremberg in the wake of World War II2, the ICC ensures that the reach of law is now universal; war criminals, either in national or international courts, will be forced to trial as a result of the principle of universal jurisdiction1. The deterrent effect of such a court is obvious and a warning to those who felt they were operating in anarchic legal environments. 1 Amnesty International. (2007, September). Fact Sheet: International Criminal Court. Retrieved May 11, 2011 2 Crossland, D. (2005, November 23). Nuremberg Trials a Tough Act to Follow. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Spiegel International | human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise
The US holds a unique position in the fabric of the protection of international peace and security. Whilst it might be appropriate for other States to consent to the jurisdiction of the ICC, these States do not bear the responsibilities and attendant risks beholden to the 200,000 US troops in continuous forward deployment. The armed forces of the US that have responded to three hundred per cent more contingency situations during the previous decade than during the whole of the Cold War. It is clear that the world more than ever looks to the US for its safety. Furthermore, the military dominance of the US increases the likelihood of prosecution. When rogue regimes are incapable of defeating the US by any military means, they are likely to resort to 'asymmetric challenges' to their forces. Challenging the authority of the US in the ICC will be more damaging to US interests and willingness to intervene than any conventional military opposition. The indispensable nation must therefore be permitted to dispense with the ICC. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-hrilpgwhwr-con02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: It may be in the best interests of victims and their state for war criminals not to be brought to trial. The ICC may well lead to the political prosecution of war criminals, but that is not necessarily the most effective means to peace, or lasting peace for victims. As U.S. policy papers have pointed out, despots like Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein did not consult lawyers over potential legal ramifications before they committed their respective human rights violations1. Furthermore, the impact on an oppressed population of a long, protracted trial of their fallen dictator is not always therapeutic for it can dredge up events of particularly melancholic qualities and grants the dictator a platform to continue his psychological control over his population. 1 Elsea, J. K. (2006). U.S. Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court. Congressional Research Service, p. 22. | human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise
It is always in the best interest of victims for war criminals to be brought to justice, even if in the intermediate period there is a great deal of stress and suppressed grief. The ICC has the power not only to punish war criminals with incarceration, but order reparations to be paid to victims. Though financial reward cannot cover the loss of life or injury, it is a start and could not directly come from the criminal themselves without the influence and power of the ICC. Furthermore, it establishes a precedent that demonstrates to the wider public that victims will, however long it takes and however hard the ICC must work, get justice for their suffering. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-hrilpgwhwr-con05b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The ICC fails to prevent atrocities. The ICC will not deter the commission of war crimes or genocide. The Third Reich augmented the crimes of the Holocaust when it became clear that the Allies would defeat them in Europe. The only expectation of the Nazi leadership was immediate execution, rather than trial in a judicial forum. Similarly, Slobodan Milosevic and the Bosnian Serb army conducted a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo whilst the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was sitting in the Hague. The calculation of whether to commit gross human rights violations is not that of the reasonable and rational individual. The existence of a court, however well intentioned, will have no effect on the commission of these crimes. | human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise
It is ludicrous to claim that the ICC will fail to deter atrocities when such an international institution has never before existed. Moreover, the ICC is not designed to be a prophylactic ; for the victims of these terrible crimes it is crucial that these offenders are apprehended, tried and punished. Retribution and protection of society are objectives not only for the domestic criminal justice system but also for the new international version. Therefore, even if the ICC failed to prevent the atrocities in the first place, a mechanism is now in place to punish those responsible. Justice is not sufficient where war crimes are concerned, but it is a start. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-hrilpgwhwr-con04b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The novel crime of aggression leads to the prosecution of those seeking to protect human rights. The likelihood of political prosecution is only augmented by the creation of the novel crime of 'aggression' under the Rome Statute. Any intervention in a State for the protection of human rights of some or all of its people might constitute a crime. The US or any NATO State could be prosecuted, at the request of the genocidaires, for successfully preventing genocide. Moreover, by a quirk of the drafting of the Statute, States that refuse to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC can nevertheless request the prosecution of individuals of other States for crimes alleged committed on its territory. Thus Milosevic could have demanded the investigation of NATO forces for the events of Operation Allied Force, but have precluded any investigation of the actions of the Bosnian Serb army on the same territory. | human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise
The crime of aggression is not remarkably novel. Intervening in the domestic affairs of a sovereign State is contrary to norms of conventional and customary law. The UN Charter prohibits both the unauthorised use of force against another State and any intervention in its domestic jurisdiction. Moreover, the fact that the crime of aggression has not yet been defined means that this objection to the ICC is purely hypothetical. The US should in fact be encouraged to ratify the Rome Statute in order to allow its negotiators to play an active role in the Assembly of State Parties. The Assembly is currently responsible for drafting the definition of this crime. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-hrilpgwhwr-con03b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The ICC has too much authority. The ICC will lead to political prosecution. American service members and senior military and political strategists will be subject to charges for legitimate military action. Any State has the power to refer an issue for investigation to the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor also has the power to commence an investigation ex proprio motu. There is no UN Security Council veto over the discretion of the Prosecutor. Moreover, the phantom of political prosecution has already materialised in the preliminary investigation mounted by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY into the NATO bombing of Kosovo and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the course of 'Operation Allied Force'. The Prosecutor chose to investigate a campaign that had been undertaken with clinical precision, that had received the ex post facto support of the Security Council, and that had been directed against a military infrastructure effecting a brutal policy of ethnic cleansing. This grim precedent suggests that a Prosecutor will not hesitate to investigate any other good faith and successful military actions across the globe. | human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise
The ICC does not have too much authority, merely the necessary authority to be useful as an institution. It is the very pre-eminence of the US that demands it adhere to the international rule of law, the ICC's existence will not alter that nor lead to charges for legitimate actions. It is perfectly possible to conduct a campaign for bona fide reasons of saving lives and protecting human rights that involves the commission of war crimes. The ICC can reasonably demand that the US, or any other State, pursue their lawful ends by lawful means. Moreover, it matters not to the victim of a gross human rights violation whether the perpetrator was the regime of a rogue state or the service member of a State seeking to protect the population. Further, other States with significant military commitments overseas, such as the UK and France, have ratified the Rome Statute without equivocation. These States accept that intervening in other States to uphold international human rights demands respect for these same norms. |
arguana-qrel-test-law-hrilpgwhwr-con01b | Generate text that refutes this claim: The ICC generates crippling expenses. Cautious estimates suggest an operating budget of $100 million per year1. The costs of the ICTY and ICTR have already spiralled out of control, and the latter tribunal has a legacy of maladministration and internal corruption. The US contributes 25% of the budget for both the tribunals, which amounted to $58 million in the fiscal year 20002. It is dubious whether the ICC could survive without US financial support. The UN as a whole is obligated only to fund investigations and prosecutions initiated at the request of the Security Council. Every other investigation must be funded by assessed contributions from the States that have ratified the Rome Statute. Although the UN could authorise the transfer of additional funds, the procedure would require a UN Security Council resolution that would of course be subject to the US veto. Alternatively, it is accepted that State Parties to the Statute could directly contribute funds or personnel to the ICC. However, the possibility of partiality or even corruption is manifest where States with their individual political interests are deploying and directing their own staff within the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC. 1 Irwin, R. (2010, January 8). ICC Trials Hit by Budget Cuts. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Institute for War & Peace Reporting: 2 Scharf, M. P. (2000, October). The Special Court for Sierra Leone. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from American Society of International Law: | human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise
The budget of the ICC is not particularly excessive and can be maintained without US finance. The withholding of US funds from the UN budget is a familiar tactic for expressing disapproval. In 1998, the total US arrears on assessed contributions that had been approved by the Security Council amounted to over $1.3 billion1. Whilst the operation of UN institutions and operations, in particular peacekeeping, might have suffered, the UN was still able to function. Likewise, there is no reason to suggest that the refusal of the US, or even Japan, to ratify the Rome Statute, would preclude the operation of the ICC. The Statute allows the donation of additional funds and resources from other State Parties. With regard to the ICTY, the EU has consistently contributed personnel, in addition to the payment of the assessed contribution of each of the 15 States. $100 million might seem a significant expense. However, it is both trite and true that no price should be put on justice. Not least justice for thousands of victims of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable. 1 Lautze, S. (2000, October). US Arrears to the UN. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Humanitarian Exchange Magazine: |
arguana-qrel-test-education-ufsdfkhbwu-pro02b | Generate text that refutes this claim: A bargaining chip In much the same way that material investment in countries can be used as a bargaining chip to secure improvements in areas of legislation, so cultural investment can be used to secure rights associated with related fields of endeavour. Free speech is merely the most obvious. It is reasonable for a western university to insist that its graduates will need to have access to the fruits of a free press and democratic speculation of experts and the wider public [i] . The cases of the lecturer, Chia Thye Poh who is arguably the world’s longest serving prisoner of conscience or the political opposition leader, Vincent Cheng who was barred from addressing a talk organised the History Society of NUS at the national library [ii] both give examples of how Singaporean government actions impact directly on university life and academic freedoms. In the light of this, it seems the height of reasonableness for Western universities to say that they will only operate in areas that offer the same academic freedoms they would expect in their home country. If the Singaporean government wants that benefits that Yale graduates can bring, they should be prepared to accept such a change. [i] Stateuniversity.Com. western Europe – Educational roots, reform in the twentieth century, contemporary reform trends, future challenges. [ii] Ex-detainee Vincent Cheng barred from speaking in history seminar, The Online Citizen, 28 May 2010 | university free speech debate free know house believes western universities
A bargaining chip, by definition needs to be part of a bargain. Using it to demand a change in the structure of the state as a whole is hardly reaching a bargain – it’s dictating a fiat. An invitation from a country to a university is a big step in expressing an interest in how that institution works and the values it promotes. Using that as an opening to demonstrate the strength of those ideas is an opportunity that should not be dismissed. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.