title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
Rather than being selfish and wanting for these women only to be able to achieve their full potential in the European Union, we should consider doing something in order to change the way they are treated at home. Most women are not able to run away from home, or travel hundreds of miles in order to get into Europe to apply for asylum and have this opportunity for development. Even if they were the EU could not take every woman in. The European Union needs to look at the bigger picture and encourage those countries that discriminate against women to become much more liberal in their attitudes to women. This can be done by aid, sanctions, and diplomacy. The EU simply needs to persuade these countries of the massive loss they are sustaining by not allowing half of their population to realize their potential. | |
The image of the European Union, even on human rights, does not result from how they treat the foreign citizens of some distant country but more on how they treat their own citizens. As with any nation or union of countries the EU’s primary responsibility is to fulfill its duties towards its own citizens. More than that, the social balance and economic stability are much more important factors in the European Union’s image abroad than how the union is treating women in faraway countries. So if we decide to talk about image, granting asylum will not improve nor damage the unions. On the other hand, its duty is to protect the European citizens and many things can still be done in this direction. There is no reason in wanting to help people abroad when you can do so much for your own. | |
The status quo involves sending women back to the threat of persecution Sometimes, women who are persecuted by their government end up running from their country just to be sent back from the EU when their asylum application is rejected. Under the current legal system, the problems of women from countries that implement Sharia Law and other forms of discrimination are often not considered sufficient grounds for asylum. This is because refugees are only considered to be refugees ‘owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’, so it does not include persecution for gender. The consequences can be of two kinds. The first and the worst is sending them back home where to face harsh punishment for trying to leave. This was the case with two women who applied for asylum in Great Britain in 1997 and were denied this right even though they faced death by stoning upon return. Even if the women are not sent home immediately due to a prolonged appeals process they are left in detention centers, in uncomfortable conditions and unable to get a job or do anything while they wait. Those who are denied entry are left with nothing only a long depressing wait to be returned to the horrible conditions from which they thought they had escaped. Cleaver, Olivia F., ‘Women Who Defy Social Norms: Female Refugees Who Flee Islamic States and Their Fight to Fit into American Immigration Law’, Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion, Women for Refugee Women, ‘Refused: the experiences of women denied asylum in the UK’, refugeewomen.com, 2012, The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, ‘Convention and Protocol relating to the status of refugees’, unhcr.org, 1951, p.14 | |
The EU’s reputation can only benefit from a strong policy on women’s rights There is a moral obligation for such a powerful and diverse group of nations to protect not only their own citizens but also people in desperate need all around the world. All the countries in the EU have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and therefore stand behind its principles. As the world biggest economic power the EU is fully capable of doing so. The Union is wealthy enough that it can take in the extra migrants that would occur as a result of taking in women from countries where they face discriminatory legislation. The European Union’s international image is not based on its military might but upon its economy and on being upstanding in its promotion of a human rights agenda. Granting asylum to women that live under discriminatory legal system reinforces this image of being concerned for human rights. The European Union has signed up to the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women by which signatories “agree to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women” while the convention is calling for the elimination of discrimination internally it is fully in the spirit of the convention to undertake actions that encourage others to fulfill the Convention. By being willing to grant asylum to women from countries that have not lived up to the standards of the convention – which includes “To adopt appropriate legislative and other measures, including sanctions where appropriate, prohibiting all discrimination against women” – the European Union will put pressure on these regimes, helping to highlight their unequal systems. ‘Article 2’, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, UN Women, 1979, | |
No violence or incitement to violence can be justified by changes in legislation. It is not a cultural attack of any kind towards the Islamic religion or a certain culture. We must acknowledge that even the Quran clearly states, “Both men and women should be equal”. Implementing such a measure is simply highlighting that these nations are not living up to their obligations and applying rights that they themselves have accepted are universal by signing up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a reminder that every country has the duty to respect its citizens and offer equal opportunities disregarding sex, religion, skin color etc. The intention of the European Union is simple and clear: you have to respect the international law and common sense. Furthermore with the example of South Park there is a fundamental difference in that portraying Mohammed is a fundamental attack on a religion where encouraging equality for women is simply encouraging change in a country’s legislation. The latter is considerably less inflammatory. | |
At a first glance this might be true but let’s take a deeper view upon these societies. The example of Saudi Arabia where women are slowly being given the vote is true but this is not much of a gain in a country where the parliament has almost no power. In a culture where it is normal that they require the approval of their husband or father in order to be able to vote or do anything the result is simply another vote for the man. More than that, in countries like Saudi Arabia, basic rights like the right of movement are denied to women who cannot get a driving license. That there is progress in some areas does not mean that there is no reason for a policy of welcoming women asylum seekers. Far from it, such a policy would increase the pressure on these countries to step up their reforms. We should also remember that progress can go into reverse – thus the trend towards more governments that are less secular in the Middle East should be a worrying reminder of why the EU needs to let these women in. Goss, Crystal, ’10 of the World’s Worst Countries to Live in as a Woman’, Take Part, 20 August 2012, Shane, Daniel, ‘Saudi in new crackdown on female drivers’, Arabian Business.com, 25 August 2013, | |
The response will be to impose more control over the movement of women. While it is cliché that every action has an equal and opposite reaction in this case the reaction is likely to be bad. If the European Union wants to open up to women from countries that discriminate against women then the clear recourse for those countries is to make sure their women can’t leave. More government and family control will mean more rights will be infringed and leaving the country will be impossible even for tourism. If men are worried about their wives claiming asylum when on holiday why would they give them the opportunity? The state could respond by taking away, or regulating the possibility for women to leave the country. If in the present day, where the EU is not offering asylum, countries in the Middle East and Africa have the certainty that women will come back after their visa expires, this certainty will no longer be in place after we approve the motion. It is in no interest for national governments to lose population and therefore they will act towards infringing this right and many others to keep women at home. | |
Allowing women asylum will damage feminist movements In order to drive social change, these regions need women who are open-minded and want to be part of feminist movements. By giving them the “easy way-out”, social change will be delayed in countries with a legal system that discriminate against women. Females will have two options. First of all, they can leave the country and come in the European Union where the situation is already better. Second, they can choose to remain in their national country and fight for their rights. It is only human to take the easy way out. Movements for women’s rights will therefore lose many of those who want to change something and are willing to take action and as a result a lot of power. Those who migrate will be those who are more independent, more willing to do something to change their situation. Their energies will be directed outwards to leaving their home rather than to improving their situation where they are which would help millions of other women as well as themselves. This is the case with emigration more generally those who leave are those who are more entrepreneurial and are more likely to be leaders – in the United States 18% of small businesses were owned by immigrants, higher than the 13% share of the total population that are immigrants. As such movements for women’s rights will not only be deprived of numbers, but they will lose the leadership of the women who would be most likely to push for change. Editorial, ‘Immigrants and Small Businesses’, The New York Times, 30 June 2012, | |
Offering asylum for women will be seen as a case of cultural imperialism Offering asylum to women who live under Sharia Law or other forms of discriminatory systems will be seen as a cultural attack made by the West against Islamic and Africa values. The European Union’s actions will be seen as neo-colonialism meant to influence foreign states population. Ultraconservative Islamic countries are already suspicious of the west of social and cultural issues; this will simply show that they are correct in their concerns. Let’s take the example of South Park, an American comedy TV-Show that portrayed Muhammad as a bear during one of its episodes. A website known for supporting jihad against the West published a warning against the creator, threatening to kill them if they don’t remove the episode. Despite being a cartoon for a western audience it was seen as an attack on Islam. A policy which would appear to be in large part directed at Islamic states would be needlessly inflammatory. The European Union would be showing that they do not care for the cultural values of others. Instead it would be promoting an imperial notion that western values are superior to those of other cultures. This is then legitimizing any notion that there is some kind of clash of cultures as it draws a line between the European Union and these states, a notion that would then be used by extremists on both sides as a propaganda tool and justification for violence. Leo, Alex, ‘South Park’s Depiction of Muhammad Censored AGAIN’, Huffington Post, 22 April 2010, | |
The situation in these countries is improving, no need for a new policy. Such an extreme measure as granting asylum to all women from these countries is not required as the situation in countries that discriminate against women is improving. Moreover, such an approach might be seen as an attack and make Middle Eastern and African countries react badly. Most of these countries are moving towards a more liberal approach and starting to promote the rights of women and reduce legislated discrimination. They already have an interest in aligning with western conditions in order to increase their international reputation. More than that, people in these societies are becoming more liberal demanding more and more rights as we see in the Arab Spring. In Kuwait, female suffrage has been allowed since 2005, whereas Saudi Arabia permitted women to vote and participate in municipal election from 2011. The right for national election will follow in 2015, with King Abdullah changing his country’s ultraconservative approach. The wind of change has left Europe and is heading toward the Middle East and Africa, promoting social reform and equality between men and women. If practices like female genitalia mutilation were widely used ten years ago, now they are enforced only in tribal parts of Africa, affecting less and less women. In conclusion, there is no need to worry about female that have residence in these countries because they are becoming more liberal and along with that, the whole country is changing. Diplomacy is working, there is no need for a new asylum policy. Ajami, Fouad, ‘The Arab Spring at One’, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2012, BBC News, ‘Kuwaiti women win right to vote’, BBC News, 17 May 2005, BBC News, ‘Women in Saudi Arabia to vote and run in elections’, 25 September 2011, Stewart, Catrina, ‘Saudi women gain vote for the first time’, The Independent, 26 September 2011, | |
Women will chose to remain in their country because they have a family, a husband, friends and most likely a place to live. Not every woman who is a leader will simply think of helping themselves, many will want to stay and help their country overcome its discrimination. And we should not suggest that those who do go to start a new life in the EU will not benefit the cause of women’s rights at home. They can learn from the example of the state they end up in, learn to lead organisations and mobilise people so that they can be more effective at promoting social change at home. | |
It is wrong to suggest that the EU should not take an action because some countries might use it as an excuse to clamp down on women’s rights. Europe needs to respond to its own problem that in the Status Quo women who get to the European Union are denied asylum even when they have every reason not to wish to return home. The UK asylum system represents an example of a system that regularly denies women asylum even when they have been persecuted. Second of all, it is absurd to believe that countries like Saudi Arabia or Yemen will definitely close their borders for women to leave as to do so would likely bring retaliation from the EU, these countries if proposing such a move clearly don’t think much of the value of their women so why would they wish to lock them in when to do so will result in less trade. Second refugees are for the most part those fleeing persecution – not those leaving under a passport. Many are already travelling without the permission of their state. If their state revokes their right to leave it will simply demonstrate the appropriateness of the EU letting them in. Women for Refugee Women, ‘Refused: the experiences of women denied asylum in the UK’, refugeewomen.com, 2012, | |
It is doubtful whether genocide such as this is based on rational calculations. For instance, the diversion of resources into the ‘Final Solution’ was a major reason why Hitler lost the war. In the same way, war criminals are unlikely to be deterred by legal threats such as these; they are driven by a fanatical hatred, not common sense. Furthermore, in wartime situations the immediate threats are so pressing that the hypothetical, long-term prospect of justice won’t affect the actions of lower-ranking officers. | |
Justice needs to be seen to be done in order to provide a deterrent to others. An accepted tenet of most justice systems is the achievement of deterrence. Without the prosecution of war crime, its perpetrators have to consider no tangible cost to their actions. This applies to those who claim to have “just followed orders,” who now face a counter-motivation to refuse or defect. In the case of high-level war criminals it becomes effective when they realise they are losing a conflict. If they fear prosecution they are more likely to seek to negotiate rather than going on a final destruction spree. In the final days of the Nazi regime, Himmler stopped committing atrocities and attempted to negotiate peace because he realised his own vulnerability to prosecution. [i] [i] Allen, Martin, Himmler's Secret War: The Covert Peace Negotiations of Heinrich Himmler. | |
Firstly, in many instances the victims of war crime want to move on with their lives. Being forced to testify and therefore relive their suffering can be deeply traumatic. Secondly, for victims to achieve catharsis or receive compensation the prosecution has to be successful, which they rarely are. If a prosecution fails to achieve a conviction, an even worse message is sent to the victims of those crimes. | |
War criminals need to be prosecuted in order to provide justice. In the instances of small-scale crime we accept that if a community condemns a person’s action, our sense of justice demands that they be punished. However, it is often the case that those who commit the most heinous crimes at the highest levels of responsibility are not prosecuted because of the complexities of the process. For example Slobodan Milošević the former leader of Serbia’s trial took four years and he died before the verdict was given. According to ICTY Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte “The death of Slobodan Milosevic deprived victims of justice”. [i] As an international community we have repeatedly pledged to prevent war crimes, in recognition of the fact that they are beyond the scope of local courts. When they occur it is a collective failure to protect, so the responsibility to prosecute and make amends falls with the international community. An admission of our inability to prosecute war crime undermines the decades of work we have done to prevent them. [i] Online NewsHour, 'Milosevic Death Precedes War Crimes Verdict', PBS, 13 March 2006 | |
The very scale of war crimes means that courts are inadequate vehicles for prevention or punishment. To achieve the international community’s goal of “never again” other methods, like sanctions, diplomatic engagement and the appropriate use of military deterrent and intervention must be employed. These pragmatic methods are unquestionably more effective and more likely to achieve long-term change. | |
After war, the primary need of the affected community is to regain day-to-day functionality, create prosperity and achieve reconciliation. While a Truth and Reconciliation Commission might help to air grievances with positive purpose, trials only serve to rake up old hatreds and prolong social divisions. | |
Prosecution provides closure for the victims of war crimes. The intention of many crimes of war is to destroy and demoralise individuals and communities. As a result, they often cause on-going harm to victims who cannot feel safe in their communities even after the conflict has ended. For victims, prosecuting war criminals has a vital cathartic function in helping them, to some extent, to come to terms with the crimes committed against them and their families. While full compensation is impossible, both the symbolic realisation of justice and the illustration of real commitment to prevention allows people to rebuild their lives to some extent. Failure to prosecute sends victims a message that the attacks on their freedoms were somehow acceptable. | |
Trials help bring divisions into the open to help heal them. For post-conflict societies to function, the tensions and divisions of the conflict must be brought out into the open and dealt with in order to be fully put to rest. Those most responsible for war crimes must be brought to justice, those involved in the regime but less culpable must have opportunity to make amends and victims must feel that they have been compensated. This allows compromise and the potential for effective governance. The alternative is to allow undiscussed, simmering hatreds and resentments to persist, which undermine growth and create a risk of further conflict. | |
Firstly, more prosecutions take place in developing nations because in recent decades more war crimes have been committed in developing nations. Western nations have been equally committed to prosecutions in the former Yugoslavia, in an increasingly prosperous European region. Secondly, although the refusal of the United States to become a signatory to the ICC is problematic, an inability to prosecute every war crime should not prevent us from prosecuting any. | |
Proving the commission of crimes on this scale beyond reasonable doubt must take a great deal of time and expertise. The end is so important that the cost must be borne. The successes at Nuremburg and the ICTY convictions prove that it is possible to bring war criminals to justice. While the ICC has had limited success, it is a young institution and is likely to streamline its processes and achieve more convictions in the future. | |
Post-conflict reconciliation These trials are not always in the best interests of people on the ground in post-conflict societies. Victims may feel great trauma at having to testify and revealing information might inflame tensions. This is particularly true when large numbers of people in the society had connections to the war criminals. For instance, many high-ranking Cambodian businessmen and officials had Khmer Rouge connections [i] and in Rwanda, Hutus make up 85% of the population. Prosecution is intended to allocate blame not to encourage progress and reconciliation. If any official process is necessary, Peace and Reconciliation Commissions are more suitable. [i] Justice of a Kind, The Economist, | |
Problems with symbolic justice There is no such thing as symbolic justice. While full justice is an admirable aspiration, its value is undermined by consistent failure. If prosecutions cannot be completed, the international community is seen as toothless. This undermines its deterrent value and trivialises the trauma of victims, who may feel their suffering is subordinate to esoteric legal principle. Furthermore, the prosecution of war criminals could use up political capital, thereby preventing more effective preventative measures, or real commitment to post-conflict rebuilding. | |
Double Standard While proposition may claim that prosecution of war criminals is a moral imperative, the reality is that geo-political factors determine which prosecutions are taken. For example, all of the ICC’s prosecutions have been against African leaders. [i] Furthermore, although the United States is strongly suspected of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is too powerful to be prosecuted. Fair justice should apply equally to everyone. Because it doesn’t, these prosecutions are often seen as Western impositions. This aggravates international tensions and reduces willingness to take any action on war crime in the developing world. For example, the African Union has refused to uphold the ICC’s arrest warrant on Omar Al Bashir. [ii] [i] Case reports of the ICC [ii] BBC News, 'Warrant issued for Sudan's leader', 4 March 2009, | |
The prosecution of war criminals is generally very ineffective. The scale of crimes being prosecuted cause very slow trials, and a high likelihood of technical acquittals. International Courts rarely have police forces of effective methods of enforcing rulings. The ICC has never achieved a successful conviction, the ICTY has been criticised for inadequate sentencing [i] and the current trials in Cambodia have become mired in court and national politics, to the point that it is expected that no further Khmer Rouge officials will be tried. Given the improbability of success, the cost and trauma of these trials is unjustifiable. [i] "Ten years in prison for Miroslav Deronjic". The Hague: Sense Agency. March 30, 2004. Retrieved 8 May 2011. "Judge Schomburg however thinks that the punishment is not proportional to the crime and is not within mandate and spirit of this Tribunal. According to him, the crime to which Deronjic pleaded guilty "deserves a sentence of no less than twenty years of imprisonment". In a brief summary of his dissenting opinion that he read after pronouncing the sentence imposed by the majority, Judge Schomburg criticized the prosecution for having limited Deronjic's responsibility in the indictment to "one day and to the village of Glogova." Secondly, Judge Schomburg adds that the "heinous and long-planned crimes committed by a high-ranking perpetrator do not allow for a sentence of only ten years", which in light of his possible early release could mean that the accused would spend only six years and eight months in prison. At the end of his dissenting opinion, Judge Schomburg quoted a statement by one of Deronjic's victims. The victim said that his guilty plea "can heal the wounds" that the Bosniak community in eastern Bosnia still feels - "provided that he is punished adequately". According to the victim, "a mild punishment would not serve any purpose."" | |
Justice is always aspirational. International law is a work-in-progress and while there is no question that a lot of work remains to be done, abandoning the effort will cause stagnation. While many failed prosecutions may come before International Courts, as commitment to international law strengthens so will the success-levels of prosecutions. | |
In most instances, victims support the progress of prosecutions and are willing to testify. If many people in the society had connections to criminal regimes then that has to be acknowledged and addressed through official means. If not, the tensions will still exist. Even if they are driven underground, the risk of violent tension re-emerging continues to exist. While Peace and Reconciliation Commissions may be useful in tandem with prosecutions, by themselves they risk appearing as mere talk shops that do not provide either punishment or compensation. | |
Those who satisfy these demands by citizens are more likely to be voted back into office. It is in their absolute interest to keep their focus on relevant emails or phone talks, as if they don’t do that, there is another person qualified for the job who will. Secondly, it is clear that in this quest for protecting society, it is in the government’s interest to obey the law. As recent events have proven, the population is allergic to any state agency’s violation of law, especially when it comes to warrantless tapping. They won’t risk breaking the law in the hope they will catch more criminals as they know there would be a society and media backlash. If anything, it is in any politician’s interest to search and investigate if any government agency is conducting such abuses and to reveal it with the resulting plaudits and votes it will bring. A politician will gain much more if it takes a public stance against that agency by imposing tighter controls and inspections rather than secretly supporting it. Let us not forget that it is the people who keep politicians in office. Thirdly, we must remember that there is a lot of pressure from different NGOs and even whistleblowers that is put on these officials not to make any wrong steps. They know that if the population finds out that they focused on anything else but catching wrong doers, their career is over and there is no coming back. As a result, we have every reason to believe that the government will maximize its efforts of protecting us, but abusing its powers won’t benefit it on any level. | |
Warrants are needed to prevent abuse In the light of the recent NSA events(1) , we must try and see past this curtain of fog the government has put in front of us, trying to make us believe that everything it does, it does for our own good and that in this process the law is being respected to the letter. Unfortunately, if the necessary system of checks-and-balances between the government and the masses or judicial courts is lacking, it will always find ways to abuse its powers and violate our rights. Even with the warrant currently being mandatory when trying to tap one’s phone, we see that Justice Department’s warrantless spying increased 600 percent in decade(2). If the government is currently invading our lives when we have specific laws banning it from doing so, why should we believe that this phenomenon won’t escalate if we scrap those laws? The government's biggest limitation when actively trying to spy or follow a large group of people was technological; it was difficult - if not impossible - to follow a lot of people for days at a time. But with surveillance tools it’s becoming cheaper and easier, as is proven by the astounding 1.3 million demands for user cell phone data in the last year “seeking text messages, caller locations and other information”(3.) Without the resource limitations that used to discourage the government from tracking you without good reason, the limits on when and how geolocation data can be accessed are unclear. A police department, for example, might not have the resources to follow everyone who lives within a city block for a month, but without clear rules for electronic tracking there is nothing to stop it from requesting every resident's cell phone location history. Considering these facts, it is clear that, as we live in a time when it would be extremely easy for the government to engage in mass surveillance of the population, we must enforce and harden the current laws for our own protection, rather than abandoning then for good. No matter what, George Orwell’s books should not be perceived as a model for shaping our society. At the end of the day, without any oversight, it would be extremely easy for the government to abuse this power given to it by electronic surveillance tools, without us ever knowing it. This system is the only thing left that prevents government agencies to violate our rights. (1) Electronic Frontier Foundation (2) David Kravets” Justice Department’s Warrantless Spying Increased 600 Percent in Decade”, “Wired” 09.27.12 (3) Trevor Timm , “Law Enforcement Agencies Demanded Cell Phone User Info Far More Than 1.3 Million Times Last Year”, “Electronic Frontier Foundation” July 9, 2012 | |
Undeniably, any government needs confidence and trust from the population in order to implement reforms in an efficient way. You need the citizens to be on the same side with the elected officials rather than trying to impede them from doing their job. Despite this, there won’t be any lack of trust as a result of scraping warrants. In order to prove this fact, one must look at the source that makes the population trust the government. There might be some mistrust in the beginning as a result of the protests that will come as soon as the scrapping occurs, but this won’t last long. In time, as society becomes safer, as terrorist attacks and crimes become scarcer, there government’s good image will return. Results are what people care about. Let us not forget that the biggest blow that a state’s image can receive happens when it is unable to protect its citizens. No matter if we are talking about 9/11, London Metro Bombings or the ones which happened at Domodedovo Airport in Moscow, each and every time the government was held responsible for its failure to prevent the attacks. If we are to talk about the state’s image and legitimacy, as the numbers of these types of regrettable events will decrease, the influence of the government and the way it is perceived can only rise. | |
Freedom from government intrusion One of the most important pillars on which every single western liberal democracy has been founded is freedom. Allowing the government to be able to track and monitor individuals through mobile or internet connections is against everything we, as a western society, stand for. First of all, it is undisputable that liberty and freedom are indispensable to our society. Every single individual should and must be the master of his own life, he should have the capacity of controlling how much the government or other individuals know about him, the right to private life being the main argument in this dispute. Secondly, it is clear that phone and internet tracking potentially allow the government to know almost everything about you. Most phones have a GPS incorporated and a lot can be deduced about ones habits by the photos or updates on his social network profile. One who knows all of another’s travels, can deduce whether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups, basically about every activity you have in your life. Remember this data is extremely precise, as your cell phone sends your location back to cell phone towers every seven seconds—whether you are using your phone or not—potentially giving the authorities a virtual map of where you are 24/7. Finally, we, as individuals, created this artificial structure, i.e the state, to protect our human rights, but also to protect us from each other. We admitted that some rights can be taken away if there is serious concern about the security of other people. Therefore, it is absolutely normal to allow the government to track and follow certain individuals who are believed to have taken part in criminal activities, but there is no ground on which you can violate the right to privacy of a law-abiding citizen, especially if we are talking about such an intrusive policy. If we did so, it would come as a direct contradiction with the very purpose the state was created. | |
What is imperative to understand is that principles are never the end result; they are simply the means to an end. We rely on certain principles like the philosophy of liberty and freedom because in general they have positive outcomes on our lives. The question which rises on this point is what principle, protection freedom, brings more benefits to us. The freedom of no one knowing your whereabouts and the right to privacy may sound good in theory, but the truth is they don’t have any effect on the individual. No matter if my phone is connected to the NSA headquarters or not, my day remains exactly the same and nothing changes. I face the same obstacles and joys and I feel the same emotions, as I am not aware of this tracking. But if we prioritize protection over freedom we see that there is significant change in someone’s life. As the government will stop and prevent more crimes happening by tracing and intercepting calls and e-mail s, the lives of the citizens will be drastically improved. Any stopped crime means that the potential victim of that crime has a dramatic improvement in their safety and quality of life. In the end, we clearly see that protection must be prioritized over freedom as it has more practical benefits upon the population. | |
In order to fully understand the impact of such measure would have over the human mind we must take into consideration that generally people have a very complicated and busy life starting from going to work, taking care of your kids, paying the bills and many more. Maybe this won’t be the case initially, but as time goes by and as you don’t feel any kind of physical effects from being under surveillance, slowly, this feeling of anxiety would fade away. Individuals will reach the conclusion that nobody is tracking them. Or at least they won’t care about it. This takes place because a person is more likely to focus on the things they love, they do or which generally surround them and have a visible effect on their life like their families, jobs or passions rather than on an uncertain possible action performed by a distant actor, especially which isn’t palpable. Second, even if some people do feel this anxiety and can’t seem to be able to find a way to get rid of it, it would still be a small price to pay in order to have a more protected society. It is better to live your life, albeit with some moments when you feel stressed than not being able to live it at all. | |
Reducing trust in the state In a world where state agencies would have the possibility of tracking everyone’s moves without any person knowing it, we would reach a point in which the population lose their trust in their elected officials. The consequences could then be very damaging to democracy. This phenomenon took place right after the NSA leaks, as the confidence in the US government was near record’s low.(1) First of all, the population would know that the government is spying and tracking their moves, but they wouldn’t know how much. This general lack of information on this matter will create a lot of scepticism relating this process, and inevitably the population will reach the conclusion that the government is conducting massive phone tapping and spying campaigns as no one is checking on them. Despite potential official document trying to give certain facts regarding this, due to the previous incidents when the state has been releasing little or misleading information, these will have little influence over the population. As a result, trust in the state will suffer a massive blow. This is extremely problematic, as you want and need the general population to trust and listen to what the government, and more particularly law enforcement agencies, say in a lot of instances. When promoting non-discrimination, gender equality or increased social welfare contributions for the poor, you need the population to see the state as someone who is on the same side with them and someone who they can trust. Unfortunately, the scepticism with which those beneficial government proposals will be received will drastically reduce their impact and the chances of them being implemented. If I do not trust that the government is looking after my own good, but rather in a lot of instances its interests are mutually exclusive with mine, then I would most probably lose my respect towards authority. When talking about law enforcement agencies, i.e the police, the NSA, etc., it is clear that we have trusted them to protect us and our rights. When it is those very agencies that are conducting these warrantless spying campaigns, it comes as a direct contradiction with their very purpose and thus the impact and the loss of trust is higher on this level. Moreover, in the long term, the whole electoral process could suffer a lot from this lack of confidence, as individuals aren’t particularly inclined to go to elections any more if they see that no matter what they do, their rights will still be breached. As you need the population to trust the government, so that its reforms are being met with positivism and not reluctance, you must not portray the government as an intrusive, harmful and ill-willing element of the society. (1) Harry J Enten ” Polls show Obama's real worry: NSA leaks erode trust in government”, The Guardian, 13 June 2013 | |
Changes in behaviour Surveillance changes the way we make daily decisions—the same way that a rapidly approaching police car in your rear-view mirror may make you feel nervous even when you are driving completely lawfully. The very existence of a mass surveillance system will negatively influence the behaviour and emotions of a significant majority of the population. First, surveillance affects emotions and mental performance, as it leads to heightened levels of stress, fatigue and anxiety due to the constant feeling that you are being watched.(1) Secondly, it creates conformity to social norms. “In a series of classic experiments during the 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch showed that conformity is so powerful that individuals will follow the crowd even when the crowd is obviously wrong. A government that engages in mass surveillance cannot claim to value innovation, critical thinking, or originality.”(2) This is of extreme importance as first of all, it is the state’s duty to create the most peaceful and harmonious environment in which the individual can reach its full potential (this one clearly not being it) and second if we don’t feel free to do things that are perfectly legal because we think someone might think it suspicious or out of character then it is difficult to say we are really free. (1) M.J. Smith, P. Carayon, K.J. Sanders, S-Y. Lim, D. LeGrande “Employee stress and health complaints in jobs with and without electronic performance monitoring”, 1992 (2) Chris Chambers ” NSA and GCHQ: the flawed psychology of government mass surveillance”, The Guardian, 26 August 2013 | |
It is clear that the population has high demands and high expectations from the government, but that is because it should do. It is clear that every time the state fails to protect us, every time it breaks the law and every time it violates our constitutional rights, the state needs to be held to account. But that doesn’t mean the state’s job is impossible and unfeasible simply that it needs to learn and improve from its mistakes, and the only way this will happen is if it is open and transparent about its systems. In addition, crime has fallen in the western world, governments can and do both protect the civilians and respect their rights at the same time. Such a system requires warrants and check and balances on government. The population may sway in terms of its demands but this is mostly driven by events; when there is a large terrorist attack there is a response, when government goes too far again the people will respond. This ensures that the government strikes the right balance. | |
It may be true that we gave the state the burden and the duty to protect us and it is a very high-ranking priority. But this doesn’t justify sacrificing day-to-day freedom just for the state to fulfil its duty a little bit more. We cannot say that the state can do whatever it wants as long as it does that for the safety of our safety. On that logic, it would be OK for the government to have a bodyguard stand next to us without our consent for every single minute of our lives, as that way, we would be more protected. The Supreme Court ruled on this in 2012 and held that police need a warrant to attach at GPS device to a car.(1) One cannot say specifically what the main purpose of the state is, as it’s rather a combination of protecting us and serving us. As it is the population who controls the government and not vice-versa, it must be up to them to decide where to draw the line between security and privacy. What we see on this level is that by engaging in these sorts of operations, the government is not fulfilling its purpose as there are a lot of harmful effects that the citizens would feel if large scale tapping will take place. Maybe some people don’t mind being spied on, but there is a significant majority of people who do. This constant feeling that you are followed translates into fear, anxiety, restlessness or stress. In turn, these emotions affect your day to day life prohibiting you from enjoying it. So on this level, the state is failing at its purpose to improve the lives of the mass population. (1) Trevor Timm , “Law Enforcement Agencies Demanded Cell Phone User Info Far More Than 1.3 Million Times Last Year”, “Electronic Frontier Foundation” July 9, 2012 | |
A safer country On this point, there are two levels on which a government which isn’t forced to obtain warrants protects the population better. In 2011 violent crime went up for the first time since 1993 data collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in telephone surveys showed a 22 percent increase in assaults so something clearly needs to be done to stop violent crime.(1) First of all, let’s not imagine that there are people hired by the government who will listen to every single word of every single conversation and that every email will be read word for word. In this type of situation, the police uses special software designed to identify certain key words like “murder”, “Al Qaeda”, etc as well as more subtle combinations which could possibly be a clue towards finding certain criminals. If someone is talking or emailing about certain wanted criminals belonging to military militias or terrorist organizations, I would want to know what they were talking about. Now, we have the possibility of doing that, as, last year, for instance, the FBI requested help to develop a social-media mining application for monitoring "bad actors or groups".(2) The problem is the initial search needs to be general to find these individuals in the general mass of the world’s population. This is an efficient way of discovering new previously-unknown criminals. In the past, there would have been no way of ever discovering these individuals and they would continue to be a threat to innocent civilians. Secondly, this improved government control over phones and the internet would be an immense deterrent. It would prevent people from engaging in planned crime as the chances of them getting caught are drastically improved. Deterrence relies on the criminal knowing that they are likely to be caught, knowing your communications are monitored will make people believe they are more likely to be caught. So, not only will the police be able to catch active criminals but will prevent other persons from engaging in this type of actions. (1) Terry Frieden ” U.S. violent crime up for first time in years”, CNN ,October 17, 2012 (2) Ryan Gallagher ”Software that tracks people on social media created by defence firm”, The Guardian, 10 February 2013 | |
Warrants are ineffective One of the main reasons for scraping the warrant-system is because of its ineffectiveness. This system of checks-and-balances was created in order to prevent the government from over monitoring the population, but unfortunately, lately, they have just become another administrative and bureaucratic step in achieving that surveillance. If we look at the statistics which revolve around the FISA court, the one which emitted warrants for the NSA, we see that it “has rejected .03 percent of all government surveillance requests”(1). This is absolutely preposterous, as one cannot reasonably assume that no abusive requests were submitted. As a result, even if there was a so-called preventive purpose of warrants, they are far from achieving it. (1) Erika Eichelberger “FISA Court Has Rejected .03 Percent Of All Government Surveillance Requests” Mon Jun. 10, 2013 | |
The public can’t decide what they want Sadly, we reached a point in our desperate quest for perfection where the population, through its mutually exclusive demands, has ended up putting the government between a rock and an anvil. The population then blames the government for not being able to fulfill these demands, when actually we are at fault. We demand our government protects us from terrorists, criminal organizations and in general people who want to harm us. If it fails to do this job, we blame it and throw dirt at it for being inefficient. But what we see is that although the state has the power to launch a full campaign against wrong-doers through electronic surveillance means, we deny him the possibility of doing that. If, by chance, the government is breaking this law when trying to stop and prevent crimes from happening, like in the example of the NSA, again we launch meaningless offenses and start accusing state agencies for being too intrusive. This fickleness is shown by polling; in 2010 47% of Americans thought that anti-terror programs had not gone far enough to protect the country, three years later that figure had dropped to 35% while those thinking the programs restrict liberties had risen from 32% to 47% with little change in how much was actually being done.(1) (1) “Few See Adequate Limits on NSA Surveillance Program” July 26, 2013 | |
Purpose of the state We as individuals created the state in order to protect and improve our lives. We gave it the burden of improving our lives from multiple points of view, economically, socially, environmentally, etc. But before these, in order for one to benefit from this advantages that the state brings, he must be alive, therefore the main burden and purpose of the state is the protection of its citizens’ lives. As a result, when judging a principle, one must mainly look if it is helping or preventing the state from reaching its ultimate purpose. As a result, it is legitimate to risk sacrificing your right to private life in order for better protection. The existence of mandatory warrants can bring, as an advantage, only a vague feeling of safety and happiness, as there is no real harm for you if someone is tapping your phone, as long as you are a law-abiding citizen. On the other hand a world in which the government wouldn’t be forced to obtain warrants would be much safer for the individuals, as the government would be able to intercept and trace more criminals. If one life is saved by this policy, it will be worth it! | |
It is absolutely clear that there exists a need for a system to keep the government in check. We can’t just stand and do nothing, while hoping for the best. There are two reasons why it is justified to keep the warrants. It is cases like this that shift opinion and force Government to reverse course. As a result everyone, including FISA and other courts will be much more careful, even with no new laws when scrutinising warrants as nobody is willing to risk another scandal happening. Secondly, this is an argument for tightening up the warrant system not against warrants themselves. It there is such a problem, let’s make warrants harder to obtain with more scrutiny before they are granted, along with more punitive punishments for abuse, more controls and a higher number of inspections. If so few warrants are being rejected there clearly needs to be more done to prevent the government from abusing its powers. | |
It is obvious that warrantless tracking of citizens is not the only way to fight crime. There are other ways which do not negatively impact the citizens to such an extent. When talking exclusively about protection, the government could have better trained police officers, harsher laws in other to deter criminals from committing infractions, improved gun control regulations and a more efficient judicial system. There a lot of alternatives to this, as the elected officials must understand that they need to choose a path which does not hurt the population. Moreover, if we look at statistics (1), in most of the western world, the crime rate has been decreasing. Slowly but surely, crimes are falling and our societies are becoming safer and safer. Thus, not only we have other ways of fighting crime, but crime is becoming less of a problem, so do we really need new intrusive measures to deal with it? (1) Eurostat Statistics, | |
For every expert who advocates the use of intercept evidence there is another who fiercely warns against it, particularly those who are experts in law [1] . Despite the use of wiretapping in the USA, many people advocate against intercept evidence by pointing out its past failures [2] and questionable authorisation [3] [4] . In the UK, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have voiced concerns that wire-tapping would expose the methods used by intelligence services [5] . This is not purely a debate about whether wire-tapping works, but whether it is in line with the legal principles held by those countries and states who currently do not allow it to be used in court. Just because it could be used does not make it legitimate – in fact, there is often heavy criticism against wiretapping within the legal profession itself [6] [7] . [1] , accessed 30/08/11 [2] , accessed 30/08/11 [3] , accessed 30/08/11 [4] , accessed 30/08/11 [5] , accessed 30/08/11 [6] , accessed 30/08/11 [7] , accessed 30/08/11 | |
Intercepted evidence could be incredibly useful for both prosecution and defence cases in many trials. Intercept evidence offers the opportunity to speed up court trials and stop wasting time and money by providing information which could lead to a faster, more accurate verdict. Other western democracies who use wire-tap evidence believe that is has or will help to achieve criminal convictions [1] [2] [3] , which demonstrates popular support for it as an effective and swift method of justice. Given that the UK has allowed wire-tapping in some specific cases [4] , it seems to be that it is not the principle of intercept evidence itself which is viewed as unacceptable by these countries, but perhaps a need to set up a formalised system of the conditions when and where intercept evidence can be used. David Bickford, the former chief legal adviser to MI5, has stated ‘I know we have lost cases as a result of not using such evidence’ [5] and other experts have called for the wide use of intercept evidence in court [6] . Allowing the use of intercept evidence in the first place may well ensure that wire-taps are better carried out in a standardised, regulated manner [1] In Sweden: , accessed 30/08/11 [2] Widely in the USA: , accessed 30/08/11 [3] In Australia: , accessed 30/08/11 [4] , accessed 30/08/11 [5] , accessed 30/08/11 [6] , accessed 30/08/11 | |
The more obvious solution to this problem (from the opposition’s view) would be to maintain a clear policy where no intercept evidence is admissible in court. However, this particular case becomes an anomaly for good reason. Individual countries – in this case Britain – cannot dictate whether foreign intelligence services – the Dutch – choose to reveal their intelligence-gathering methods or not. In this case, the crossover between national policies on information intelligence [1] led to this anomaly. [1] , accessed 30/08/11 | |
Wiretapping is a highly effective method which helps to prevent serious crime and secure convictions for criminals. Wiretapping helps to make society safer; we have the opportunity to prevent serious crime and to uphold the principle of prosecution in the justice system [1] by catching criminals and convicting them. For example, in the UK in 2003, intercepts led to the seizure of 26 tonnes of drugs and also detected wide-scale fraud and money laundering, resulting in 1680 arrests [2] . Without this evidence, these criminals may have escaped the justice system and remained free in society to commit other crimes. It is nonsensical to reject evidence which clearly implicates this individuals who would otherwise be released without charge. As the threat of terrorism escalates and had already damaged many countries [3] [4] [5] [6] , refusal to use this evidence in court puts the public at serious risk and fails to act in the defence of the country in question. For example, if the Norwegian authorities had kept closer tabs on information passed through eBay, they might well have been able to apprehend Anders Breivik before he committed the massacre on Utoya island [7] . Wiretapping is unique in the variety of information it can provide; it can show locations [8] , times [9] , the relationships between those involved [10] and even record specific details of conspiracies [11] . Accordingly, it can also be used to prove the innocence of somebody who might otherwise be wrongly accused or even wrongly imprisoned [12] [13] . The obvious benefits to this motion demand that intercept evidence and wiretapping should be held as legitimate evidence in court. [1] Page 65: , accessed 30/08/11 [2] , accessed 30/08/11 [3] In the UK: [4] In Norway: , accessed 30/08/11 [5] In the USA: , accessed 30/08/11 [6] In Europe and Belgium: , accessed 30/08/11 [7] , accessed 30/08/11 [8] , accessed 30/08/11 [9] , accessed 30/08/11 [10] , accessed 30/08/11 [11] , accessed 30/08/11 [12] , accessed 30/08/11 [13] , accessed 30/08/11 | |
If the use of wiretapping and intercept evidence was as simple as proposition makes out, undoubtedly it would be a common tool. However, there are also serious flaws in how this intelligence is gathered and interpreted. For example, a phone call might seem unduly incriminating when taken out of context and heard in a court of law which has already projected suspicions upon a particular individual [1] . Focusing only on one form of communications as is normal when authorisation is given for these interceptions fails to take in the wider picture and continues to be heard without the context [2] . Whether this unfairly incriminates somebody who has not acted in a crime, or falsely ‘proves’ the innocence of somebody who is not in fact innocent, intercept evidence is limited in its scope and as such should not be admissible in court. [1] , accessed 30/08/11 [2] , accessed 30/08/11 | |
While intercept evidence may well show links between people, it does not necessarily accurately show what they were doing. In this way, intercepts make good intelligence, but poor evidence. There is no guarantee that intercept evidence will ‘prove’ anything in court rather than simply creating unfounded implications which could actually serve to confuse, rather than clear, the case in question. Until intercept intelligence can prove itself reliable enough to be routinely used as genuine evidence – and it is unclear that it ever will [1] – it certainly should not become an established part of the wider legal system. [1] , accessed 30/08/11 | |
Countries which do not allow intercept evidence have created a contradictory, rather than transparent, set of legal boundaries. Britain in particular seems to hold a paradoxical set of values in relation to intercept evidence. For example, British courts have allowed intercept material which has been lawfully obtained by foreign police forces. One notable example of this was the conviction of the Merseyside drugs squad chief Elmore Davies when it was discovered that he had a corrupt relationship with drug baron Curtis Warren [1] . The information which led to his conviction was collected on Dutch mobile phones by the Dutch police force, despite the fact that some of the conversations took place wholly within the UK. However this – bizarrely – was allowed as evidence in a British court [2] , despite the systematic rejection of intercept evidence in other cases. When a country seems to recognise and even capitalise on the potential of intercept evidence in some cases but simultaneously reject it in others, the result is inconsistent legal standards which damage accountability and transparency of the entire state. [1] , accessed 30/08/11 [2] , accessed 30/08/11 | |
Intercept evidence deals particularly well with cases of conspiracy and criminal gangs which have a widespread network. Intercept evidence can be very useful for showing associations between groups of people [1] , which can be incredibly helpful in cases such as conspiracies to link people and events together. It can also expose inconsistencies or falsity in an individual’s alibi [2] or personal character if they deny contact with a certain party where intercept evidence proves that they had communicated [3] . However, under the status quo the defence lawyer may not be authorised to intercept evidence which would prove their client’s innocence [4] . Allowing such techniques would help to equalise the prosecution and defence; after all, the aim of court is not to blindly prosecute the defendant, but to ascertain whether he or she is in fact guilty before any prosecution occurs. Widening the array of tools which can be used by both prosecution and defence helps to encourage a wider view of the case and arrive at a more accurate verdict. [1] , accessed 30/08/11 [2] , accessed 30/08/11 [3] , accessed 30/08/11 [4] , accessed 30/08/11 | |
More established forms of evidence – even those as sophisticated as DNA testing – also have their weaknesses. Following the death of British student Meredith Kercher, her supposed killer Amanda Knox was imprisoned after DNA evidence proved that Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the murder weapon (a kitchen knife) while Meredith’s blood was on the blade [1] . However, an appeal has declared that the DNA evidence ‘was so small it should have been considered “inadmissible”’ [2] , and the original forensic team have been branded as incompetent [3] . This is an example of an extremely high-profile case which hinged a conviction on the use of ‘reliable’ DNA evidence, and may potentially be proved wrong – the appeal is currently ongoing. There is no evidence which is utterly, 100% certain; it is always open to interpretation. However, allowing intercept evidence in court gives another chance at finding out the truth. Given that intercept evidence would work in combination with expert cross-examination, there is no proof that intercept evidence cannot be as effective as any other form of evidence – or perhaps even more so. [1] , accessed 30/08/11 [2] , accessed 30/08/11 [3] , accessed 30/08/11 | |
As criminals and terrorists adapt to modern times, so should the law. If the principles of law are responsible for a failure to act which ultimately leads to criminals walking free and crimes being repeatedly committed, then the law has failed to serve the society it was built for [1] . The principles of law are meant to uphold justice [2] , but in this case they become an obstacle to it. Considering that the law in countries like Britain has already acknowledged intercept evidence as a tool in specific cases [3] , it cannot oppose the underlying principle of intercept evidence – rather, the practicalities. This undermines the opposition’s argument that intercept evidence is fundamentally out of joint with legal practice. Problematic practicalities will be better regulated [4] [5] and monitored if this motion is granted, but until then we risk allowing crime to go unhindered because of an imaginary obligation to the past. [1] , accessed 30/08/11 [2] , accessed 30/08/11 [3] ,, accessed 30/08/11 [4] Regulations in American states: , accessed 30/08/11 [5] Regulation of wiretapping in Australia: , accessed 30/08/11 | |
Wiretapping can actually threaten the success of intelligence services in preventing crime and helping to prove criminals guilty. Regular use of wiretap and intercept evidence poses a danger to the evidence-gathering capabilities of intelligence agencies. There are concerns among experts that terrorists, far from being apprehended, will simply learn new techniques for ‘listening in to calls made over the internet’ [1] and know exactly who and what the intelligence services are monitoring. In this way, they could actually evade intelligence services and the police by using different forms of communication, such as encrypting messages or using disposable mobile phones. Revealing the capabilities of our intelligence agencies could create harms which far outweigh any potential benefits of intercept evidence [2] . This makes intercept evidence self-negating; if it is used, the very revelation of its use will alert criminals to it and make it vulnerable to manipulation and tampering – therefore, the evidence actually becomes less reliable and less effective [3] . Ultimately, it does not provide a tangible benefit. [1] , accessed 30/08/11 [2] , accessed 30/08/11 [3] , accessed 30/08/11 | |
Common authorisation for wiretapping would result in misallocation of resources. Wiretaps are not only unreliable, but incredibly expensive [1] [2] . Intelligence agents also often find themselves inadvertently listening in on ‘irrelevant, non-incriminating aspects of the target’s life’ [3] which not only breaches the privacy of innocent people but is an obvious waste of time and money for all involved. Given that many countries are considering or have cut their funding for police forces because of the recession [4] [5] [6] , this money could be put to a better use: preventing crime and terrorist activity by a stronger police presence. [1] , accessed 30/08/11 [2] , accessed 30/08/11 [3] , accessed 30/08/11 [4] In the UK: , accessed 30/08/11 [5] In the USA: , accessed 30/08/11 [6] In New Zealand: , accessed 30/08/11 | |
Intercept evidence is simply not reliable enough to be effective evidence in court. Wiretap evidence is not as reliable as other forms of evidence which we currently have at our disposal, such as DNA evidence which has ‘sent thousands of people to prison and . . . has played a vital role in exonerating men who were falsely convicted’ [1] . Many potential aspects of intercept evidence lack this reliability. Voice analysis, for example, has been shown to be unreliable in exploring messages supposedly spoken by Osama Bin Laden [2] . Video intercept evidence notably failed when a video which purported to show Morgan Tsvangirai (the Zimbabwean opposition leader) conspiring against the government, when in fact he was somewhere else at the time [3] . The poor quality of intercept evidence is a threat within an individual trial, but also more widely; reliance on intercept evidence by prosecutors might lead to more cases collapsing after the evidence is proved unreliable, and wasting time and money for all involved. [1] , accessed 30/08/11 [2] , accessed 30/08/11 [3] , accessed 30/08/11 | |
The controversy which surrounds intercept evidence is far-reaching and very complex. This debate is not contained within the courtroom but also spans wider principles of legal justice and the rules which uphold democratic law. Even countries which currently allow this evidence, such as certain US states [1] , have noted that it can be difficult to use successfully and without violating past Acts and wider legal principles [2] . Bodies such as MI5, MI6 and GCHQ argue that revealing the ‘evidence’ necessitates revealing how that evidence was garnered; as such, intercept evidence can compromise the security status of intelligence services and their techniques [3] . This kind of method should be reserved, if used at all, for singular, extreme cases such as terrorist activity where all other possibilities for collecting evidence have truly been exhausted. Finally, wiretapping and intercept evidence has been criticised or deemed illegitimate by many legal professionals [4] [5] . For this kind of evidence to be admissible in court, it needs to follow legal principles which have already been set up. There is little evidence that it can do so. [1] , accessed 30/08/11 [2] , accessed 30/08/11 [3] , accessed 30/08/11 [4] , accessed 30/08/11 [5] , accessed 30/08/11 | |
If wiretapping and intercept evidence can stop large-scale conspiracies [1] and potentially stop terrorist actions [2] , as it has done and has the potential to do, then price becomes irrelevant. The price of preventing perhaps hundred of people from being harmed in terrorist action should and will always outweigh a financial argument. Wiretapping could in fact lift the burden on over-stretched police forces as they do not have to physically apprehend criminals to attain evidence of their guilt. Wiretapping and intercept evidence is a step towards greater efficiency in our justice system. [1] ,, accessed 30/08/11 [2] www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05249.pdf , accessed 30/08/11 | |
This argument is made irrelevant by the fact that the UK and other jurisdictions have rules of evidence which prevent the release of sensitive information from intelligence services [1] . There is no reason why playing a few minutes of recorded conversation in a courtroom automatically means that criminals and terrorists know the exact mechanisms used to record that information. Furthermore, if a trial is being held anyway, then the suspects involved already know that they have been monitored by intelligence services – otherwise they would not have been brought to trial. Similarly, high-risk terrorist cells already protect their communication by using things like encrypted messages [2] and disposable mobile phones [3] . Dangerous criminals and terrorists are already one step ahead of our current justice system; implementing this motion is the only way to have a genuine chance at apprehending them. [1] The Official Secrets Act of 1989: , accessed 30/08/11 [2] , accessed 30/08/11 [3] , accessed 30/08/11 | |
Via legal precedent, [1] Habeas Corpus protections extend to foreign nationals detained in the US. Furthermore, to focus solely on the immigration status and purported guilt of suspected terrorists ignore the fact that Habeas Corpus exists to protect us all. Eliminating the rights for “bad people” necessarily eliminates them for the innocent as well. [1] Supreme Court of the United States, Boumediene v Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), | |
Enemy combatants are not US citizens and as such they should not enjoy any protection which a US citizen enjoys under the Constitution. Unlawful enemy combatants are not US citizens. The only connection they have to the US is the desire to destroy it. As such, they do not fall within the group of people the Constitution is intended to protect. [1] [1] BBC News, ‘Guantanamo appeal denied’, 12 March 2003, | |
The current war on terror is not comparable to past wars during which Habeas Corpus was suspended. Both the Civil War and World War II were openly declared wars of limited duration following invasions by hostile forces. The “war on terror” is nebulous and open-ended. In any case, history has harshly judged arbitrary detentions during wartime. Lincoln’s Civil War detentions and Roosevelt’s Japanese internment camps of the 1940s are embarrassing chapters in US national history. The fact that former presidents improperly suspended Habeas Corpus is all the more reason to exercise caution now. Additionally, the suspension of Habeas Corpus by the UK in 1971 arguably strengthened the cause of the IRA, and made it easier for the organisation to recruit members. Western governments should be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the past | |
Restricting Habeas Corpus is necessary in the face of the new and dangerous threat which modern terrorism poses. Restricting suspected terrorists’ rights to challenge their detention is necessary to ensure that that individual cannot participate in future terrorist activities. The attacks of September 11th constituted a catastrophic and unprecedented attack on US soil, and the measures undertaken by the US at Guantanamo Bay, in holding many terrorist suspects without trial, are necessary to prevent future attacks of that nature. Terror suspects still have recourse to military tribunals, which contain many of the same safeguards as the federal court system | |
There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism. | |
Habeas Corpus has often been suspended in times of conflict, when it has been deemed necessary. There is a longstanding tradition of suspending Habeas Corpus protections during times of war and conflict. For example, President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. [1] Habeas Corpus was also suspended briefly in the Hawaii during World War II, immediately after the attacks on Pearl Harbour. [2] In the UK, Habeas Corpus was suspended in 1794, after the French declared war on Britain, [3] and in 1817, [4] in order to arrest parliamentary reformers. In 1971 Habeas Corpus was again suspended in the UK in order that IRA suspects could be arrested and detained. [5] 9/11 and other Al Qaeda plots require that Western countries respond in just as determined a way. The war on terror may not follow the rules of traditional warfare, but it is a war nonetheless. These precedents show that, in certain circumstances, the suspension of Habeas Corpus is both necessary and justified. [1] Lincoln, Abraham, ‘Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus’, teachingamericanhistory.org, 24 September 1862, [2] Anthony, J. Garner, Hawaii under Army Rule, Stanford University Press, p.5, [3] Holmberg, Tom, ‘Great Britain: Suspension of Habeas Corpus. 7 May 1794’, The Napoleon Series, July 2002, [4] ‘Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill’, Hansard, 24 June 1817, vol.36, cc1145-55, [5] Wilkinson, Paul, Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response, 2nd ed., Routledge, 2006, p.82, | |
The hatred that terrorists feel for the US and its Allies does not depend on details of their respective legal systems. Their hate stems from our success in building a tolerant, democratic society at odds with their narrow vision of harsh conformity. Their propaganda seeks to radicalise young Muslims across the world not by arcane appeals to Habeas Corpus, but by twisted portrayals of Allied military actions against civilians in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. If the prisoners currently held without trial in Guantanamo Bay were released, they could untold damage to the US and its Allies. The risk of this occurring clearly outweighs the ethical issues concerning the suspension of Habeas Corpus protections. | |
Global terrorism calls for aggressive responses. We cannot allow our respective nations to be besieged by terrorists while we stand aside and do nothing. Our enemies are well aware of the legal framework in which the US authorities and their Allies operate, and will exploit it wherever possible. Constitutional freedoms are extremely important, but the security and continued existence of our nations must come first. The US and its Allies must make a stand and demonstrate that terrorism will not be tolerated. | |
Disregarding Habeas Corpus protections sets a dangerous precedent for the treatment of the soldiers and citizens of the US and its Allies when captured by foreign forces. If the US disregards Habeas Corpus protections, it sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world to follow. If other countries follow suit, the citizens and soldiers of the US and its Allies abroad could also be indefinitely detained and denied legal recourse if captured by foreign forces. This is especially relevant when considering journalists covering foreign conflicts, such as those currently occurring in the Middle East. [1] [1] Staff reports, ‘USA TODAY writer, 3 other journalists captured in Libya’, USA Today, 8 April 2011, | |
Suspending Habeas Corpus makes it easier for terrorist organisations to demonise the US and its Allies, and thus to recruit more terrorists in its fight against the West. By suspending Habeas Corpus, the US is playing into the hands of terrorists and creating more would-be terrorists for the future. Enemies of the West aim to demonstrate that the US is an oppressive state in order to make its model less attractive to others. In particular, they wish to show that America is at war with Muslims in order to radicalise young Muslims both at home and overseas. The US should take heed of the precedent in Northern Ireland, where widespread internment without trial radicalised many Catholic youths in the 1970s and drove them into the arms of the IRA. | |
Suspending Habeas Corpus undermines the moral high ground of the US and its Allies, and strengthens the cause of the terrorists which these nations are fighting against. Restrictions on Habeas Corpus undermine the war against terror and put national security further at risk. Giving terrorist suspects the protection of Habeas Corpus legitimises the war against terror by ensuring that US actions against suspected terrorists have a legal basis, and are not in contravention of the rule of law. The moment that the US and its Allies show the rule of law the disrespect that typifies the regimes which the West seeks to overthrow, the fight for ‘hearts and minds’ will be lost. This effect can easily be seen in the results of the suspension of Habeas Corpus in the UK in order to arrest suspected IRA activists in 1971 – rather than suppressing the IRA as intended it increased support for the terrorist organisation. [1] [1] Wilkinson, Paul, Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response, 2nd ed., Routledge, 2006, p.82, | |
The necessity of the measures, and the size of the terrorist threat which faces the US, outweighs the possible problems posed in the opposition argument. | |
Even the best Truth and Reconciliation process can only arrive at a partial version of the truth. This may take so many years that political development is halted while society relives the trauma through commission proceedings. Truth and reconciliation commissions also impose a particular form of morality upon both their participants and the post conflict society they serve. This moral perspective draws upon specifically Christian traditions of confession, absolution and forgiveness that may be alien to victims and perpetrators alike. Even in an almost completely Christian South Africa, many victims' families rejected the process for this reason; it is even less well suited to other societies and cultures. It is no coincidence that the truth and reconciliation process is so heavily promoted by European and American think tanks, government and NGOs. It fits into a decidedly Christian niche and presents western donors and aid givers with an image of progress that they can understand an easily approve of. However, without closer ties to the cultural contexts in which past political violence took place, reconciliation commissions run the risk of obstructing political and social reform in the very societies that they are intended to protect. | |
Truth and reconciliation are more important than retribution following violent and long term conflicts It is important to uncover the real truth of what happened during periods of violence and/or repression. Uncertainty as to the fate of loved ones, the identity of informants or the motives for certain actions can maintain the grip of a conflict over the minds of its victims for many years [i] . The unreason and capriciousness of certain actions can undermine an individual’s identity and capacity to trust. A victory is supposed to bring rapprochement, reason and stability to a conflict zone – but it is unable to have this effect on individuals without some method of rationalising a conflict [ii] . This result can only ever be achieved with the cooperation of those responsible; the individuals who had access to relevant documents or even participated in violent acts [iii] . Without this collective revelation of grief and guilt, the families of the victims will never know the truth about their suffering, and so will not be able to mourn them with dignity. The nation must also confront its past so that those who did not commit violence themselves, but who supported violent groups or repressive regimes, even if only passively, can no longer claim, "I did not know" but must acknowledge their part too and commit themselves to building a better society. [i] National Healing and Reconciliation in Zimbabwe: Challenges and Opportunities. P 9. 2010, Pamela Machakanja. [ii] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report, Volume one. pp 1, 54-58. 1998, The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. [iii] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report, Volume one. pp 142-143. 1998, The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. | |
The reconciliation process provides access to justice in post conflict states Countries emerging from violent pasts, involving repression, civil war and political violence may attempt to come to terms with their histories in three ways. Firstly, they can attempt to ignore the past, allowing those guilty of atrocities to go unpunished and perhaps even prosper under the new system. This approach leaves victims' families bitter and communities divided, entrenching resentments and potentially distorted accounts of individuals’ involvement in violent activities. Such a situation makes renewed violence all the more likely. Secondly, post conflict states can set up war crimes courts (as in the Balkans, Rwanda and Sierra Leone), but these may be seen as victor's justice, or as an imposition by a distant opaque international body. Those threatened by such courts may refuse to lay down their arms, jeopardising any chance of a lasting peace settlement - as with Joseph Kony's long-running rebellion in Northern Uganda. Finally and often best, they can set up a form of Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This requires the whole country to face up to its past, to acknowledge that violence was done by all parties and that the victims were many, and to seek reconciliation through forgiveness at both personal and national levels. | |
Terrible crimes deserve appropriate punishments. Ignoring the past may not be a good idea, but war criminals (especially the leaders of violent groups) should be brought to justice in public trials. This approach is the only way to ensure that dangerous men are not allowed to continue to act in and influence vulnerable societies. Such individuals are often opportunistic, using periods of peace to re-arm and refresh political sympathies, before resuming campaigns of violence. Indeed, the notorious Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony took advantage of peace negotiations initiated in early 2008 to rearm his followers and to forcibly recruit child soldiers for communities in south Sudan and Congo [i] . Adversarial justice also allows punishment to be proportionate, distinguishing between individuals who planned violence and repression, and those who followed their orders, rather than granting all the same amnesty. Most importantly, treating communal and political violence as a crime sends a message to other would-be warlords and dictators, both at home and abroad, that justice will not be denied; the easy assumption of amnesties will only encourage future violence. [i] “Lord’s Resistance Army uses truce to rearm and spread fear in Uganda”, The Times, 16 December 2008. | |
Financial compensation was only part of the South African Commission's work. Although it has been slow to arrive it is continuing to be distributed. More will be done over time, and the impact of reconciliation on polls is also a long-term process. The economies of states recovering from war and dictatorship are typically unproductive and undeveloped, so it is unreasonable to expect immediate results in this area. Lengthy war crimes trials deal with only a fraction of the abuses committed, and typically cost tens of millions of dollars (mostly in legal costs, mostly obtained from foreign donors) more than a Truth and Reconciliation process, so they are even harder to justify. | |
A Truth and Reconciliation process provides a national forum for facing up to the past. It places responsibility for resolving the tensions latent in post conflict scenarios in the hands of the parties to that conflict [i] . The ICC, by contrast, represents an international intrusion into the moral discourses of post conflict societies. War crimes tribunals for the Balkans and Rwanda have taken years to achieve a very small number of convictions. They can often appear to have been hijacked by international bodies such as NATO or the UN, in an attempt to impose a solution from outside (to salve consciences in the west) without providing a real understanding of the particular circumstances of the individual nation. [i] “The voice of ‘Prime Evil’”, BBC News Online, 28 October 1998. | |
Reconciliation can be used to conceal political corruption and patrimony Truth and Reconciliation commissions are a mask, behind which political bargains can be made that allow the guilty to go free [i] . Power is traded in return for amnesty. People may be required to confess to their crimes (although in South Africa middle-ranking bureaucrats were the main scapegoats, while their political masters mostly escaped close scrutiny), but they will not be punished for them [ii] . South Africa is a unique exception to the rule that reconciliation commissions do nothing more than legitimatise dealings between equally dubious and unaccountable elites where violence was often committed by agents of the state for purely political reasons, and where the end of repression was negotiated rather than brought about through victory for one side. Elsewhere political and criminal or economic violence are hard to separate (e.g. Sierra Leone, Cambodia), and violence was ended by victory for one party, often with external help (e.g. Sierra Leone, Cambodia, again, but also Rwanda). [i] “’I cannot betray Kony’ – Museveni”, The Daily Monitor, 16 August 2006, [ii] Apartheid did not die. 1998, John Pilger, johnpilger.com. | |
The South African reconciliation commission has proven itself to be ineffective Frequently cited as the most successful post conflict restorative justice programme in recent history, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation process has failed in a number of ways. Polls show that different races are more polarised after its work, rather than less [i] , so reconciliation seems to be failing [ii] . As the journalist Peter Storey comments, “some have decried the absence of repentance in many amnesty applications [made to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission]. Apart from the fact that this is a further damning judgment on perpetrators, the legislation does not require repentance, only the truth.” Storey notes that “The issue of amnesty has been… controversial. Some victims’ families challenged these provisions in South Africa’s highest court[s].” [iii] The South African Reconciliation Commission also promised financial redress for victims and their families, but this has largely failed to appear. [i] Ubu and the Truth Commission. Director’s note. 2007, Jane Taylor, University of Cape Town press [ii] “Antonette’s story”, BBC News Online, 29 October 1998. [iii] “A Different Kind of Justice: Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa”, The Christian Century, 10 September 1997. | |
International and inter-governmental bodies are better able to secure justice for the victims of war crimes The United Nations, the ICC and other international bodies have great experience and expertise in dealing with post-conflict situations, including running war crimes trials. They can draw upon the lessons to be learnt from other countries and apply them in partnership with local politicians and lawyers. The involvement of inter-governmental bodies is important because conflicts are rarely entirely domestic, often spilling over into neighbouring states, as in the Balkans, South-East Asia and West Africa. International courts can also avoid the suspicion of bias and corruption which an entirely national process can suffer. Post conflict societies are often lack a stable professional class. Access and cooperation with lawyers, clergy and academics is often necessary to ensure that a reconciliation commission can run effectively and can verify the testimony that it hears. The international community can provide skilled individuals of this type. | |
Compromise is essential to achieving peace and stability after years of conflict. This often has to be negotiated, as in South Africa, and has to survive for long enough for trust to grow. A Truth and Reconciliation process allows for such compromises to be made, favouring no side over another and helping a move to peaceful democratic politics. It does not seek retributive justice but restorative justice, which gives value to the victims of conflict and requires their oppressors to address their sufferings. The amnesties offered by truth and reconciliation commissions are not easily obtained, but have to be applied for individually, through a complete and truthful disclosure of past crimes. If information is withheld, or the crimes are found not to be politically motivated, then prosecution and punishment are still possible. | |
There is a fundamental difference between someone’s actions directly resulting in another person’s death and the case of bullying. In the case of manslaughter, the victim never had a choice. The perpetrator is solely responsible for what happened. But some victims of bullying take a decision to kill themselves, while others do not. The bully cannot be held responsible for someone else’s decision and action, only for her own. | |
The bully's intentions are irrelevant In criminal law, the establishment of culpability does not always depend on the intentions of the perpetrator. If, during a fight on a train platform, I shove someone and that person falls on the tracks and is killed by a train, I will be guilty of manslaughter, whether I intended to kill the person or not, because the harm caused by my actions is so great [1] . The same applies to bullying. Bullies try to hurt their victims through their actions, either physically or psychologically. Whether the bully intended for the victim to die or not, is irrelevant. The bully’s actions were responsible for the victim taking her own life. [1] Ashworth, Andrew. Principles of Criminal Law, Chapter 7.5. Oxford University Press. 2009. | |
We should always focus on stopping the behaviour before it escalates to the point of the victim’s suicide. Bullies should be held to account early on. We shouldn’t wait until someone dies before they are punished. If victims know there will be early intervention, they will be far less likely to even consider suicide. If they know the bullies won’t be punished until after their death, it might even encourage some distraught victims to kill themselves in the hope of exact vengeance on their tormenters. Early intervention is a much better outcome for everyone. | |
The law should always punish actions that inflict serious harm - whether physical or psychological Bullying can inflict serious psychological harm on its victims, especially in the case of young people. It leads to low self-esteem, depression, and for some kids it leads to suicide [1] . Bullied children are almost 6 times more likely to think about or attempt suicide [2] . This phenomenon has been termed ‘bullycide’ and the law should recognize it. Many forms of behaviour that result in the death of another person are criminal, from murder to negligence. It is the duty of the law to brand such behaviour as unacceptable, deter future incidents, punish the perpetrators, and offer comfort to victims: in this case, the families of those who lost their life to bullying. [1] O'Moore, Mona, “Understanding School Bullying: A Guide for Parents & Teachers”, Veritas, 1, Dublin, 2010 [2] Kim YS, Leventhal BL, Koh YJ, Boyce WT “Bullying Increased Suicide Risk: Prospective Study of Korean Adolescents”. Arch Suicide Res. Vol. 13, No. 1, pp15-30. 2009. | |
The law should only punish people for their own actions, not those of others. It’s fine to punish bullies for their bullying behaviour, if it is against the law. But ‘bullycide’ implies the bully bears individual responsibility for the death of the victim, just like in the case of murder or manslaughter. But the bully did not pull the trigger, the victim did. While the bully may have intended to harm or berate the victim, she made no attempt on the victim’s life, and cannot be treated like a murderer, who intentionally took the life of another. | |
The laws are inadequate because it is very hard to define bullying. Almost any act or gesture can constitute bullying depending the victim’s subjective experience of it. Criminalizing bullying would lead to criminalizing behaviour that would be considered normal by most standards. | |
The damage wrought by bullying is cumulative Bullying is truly dangerous when it becomes persistent. Any one incident of it, while unpleasant, may be entirely tolerable for the victim. But being unrelentingly subjected to this treatment for months on end can make life truly unbearable and lead that person to suicide. In the case of Phoebe Prince, an Irish immigrant who was bullied at her US high school, she was called expletives, threatened, and even hit with a beverage container before she finally took her life [1] . She may have survived any one of those taunts, but it was their cumulative effect that was too much to bear. Conversely, punishing her bullies for any one act will fail to acknowledge the much greater extent of the overall harm. A different, special offence is needed to recognize the magnified level of harm caused by bullying. [1] Eckholm, Eric; Zezima, Katie. “Documents Detail a Girl’s Final Days of Bullying”. The New York Times. April 8, 2010. | |
The current legal regime is not able to prevent or adequately punish bullying Even when bullies are sometimes prosecuted, they are charged with offences that constitute individual components of the bullying behaviour, like harassment, stalking, causing bodily harm [1] , or invasion of privacy [2] . But these offences were not designed with bullying in mind and fail to capture its overall impact and the harm it causes. While bullies may be charged with several of these offenses this will still not capture the kind of harm being done and would not be as effective as a specifically tailored offense. We need laws that recognize that harm and which punish those who inflict it adequately. [1] Eckholm, Erick. “Two Students Plead Guilty in Bullying of Teenager.” The New York Times. May 4, 2011. [2] Foderaro, Lisa W. “Private Moment Made Public. Then a fatal Jump.” The New York Times. September 29. 2010. | |
Of course there will always be ambiguous cases. That is why we have trials, and rights for the defendant. The weight of the evidence presented in court should establish what degree of culpability, if any, the bullies had. If the prosecution does not have a solid case to present, it may even choose not to prosecute. But the law should be in place for those cases where it is needed. | |
Under this law, bullies would be held accountable for their own actions, not those of the victim. The law wouldn’t have to equate them with murderers, punish them as harshly, or suggest they bear sole and full responsibility for the victim’s death. But it would make it clear they bear some responsibility for the outcome, and that they should be punished for their role. If they are children, they can be prosecuted as juvenile offenders and given less harsh punishments, like community service. | |
Conduct offence Defining bullying would be nearly impossible. Spreading rumours, giving someone the silent treatment, inviting all your classmates but one to a party, expressing a religious belief about someone’s sexuality, eye rolling, making faces, these can all be hurtful and perceived as bullying [1] . Yet this is perfectly legal behaviour. Criminalizing bullying would amount to criminalizing these acts. They may be offensive, they may even be hurtful, but these gestures should never, ever constitute criminal behaviour in any society that is concerned with human rights, freedom of speech, and of expression. Throwing someone in prison for spreading rumours or eye rolls might be worthy of a totalitarian state, but not a liberal democracy. [1] Bolton, José, and Stan Graeve. No Room for Bullies: from the Classroom to Cyberspace. Boys Town Press. 2005. | |
Bullys are frequently as disturbed and victimised as those they target According to studies, bullies are often children who are plagued by their own problems: a troubled family situation, feeling of inadequacy, depression, or pressure to fit in [1] . Their bullying behaviour might just be a coping mechanism and a cry for help. These children might need as much support and care as those they bully. Putting them through the harrowing experience of a criminal trial, and potentially throwing them in prison will further damage them. Destroying one young life as retribution for another is a model of justice that should find no place in a compassionate society. [1] Carroll, Linda. ”Kids with ADHD may be more likely to bully”. MSNBC. 29 January 2008. | |
Making bullying a legal issues does not incentivise robust enforcement of anti bullying rules by schools Schools are educational establishments that parents trust to protect and educate their children. Teachers and school administrators are those who should be keeping a watchful eye on the students in their care and intervene before harm comes to them. If bullying occurs at school, then that school has failed in its duties. In fact, in cases where suicides occurred, it has often later come to light that a bullying culture was widely tolerated at the school, and that school staff that knew about it did nothing to prevent it, with tragic results [1] . To prosecute the bullies would shift responsibility from the woeful failure of the adults around them, who should have known better and done more than the children in their care. [1] Bazelon, Emily. “What Really Happened to Phoebe Prince? Entry 1”. Slate. July 20. 2010. | |
It is difficult to make a direct, legally sound link between a bully's behaviour and a victim's suicide Many of the children and adolescents who take their own lives allegedly as a result of bullying have a far more complicated background. Some already struggle with depression, and have unstable family situations that make it hard to turn to their parents for help with their problems. Phoebe Prince, for example, was taking anti-depressants, was devastated by her parents’ divorce, was self harming, and had already attempted suicide after a break up. And that was long before she was allegedly bullied to death [1] . She was a very troubled young woman, and anything could have pushed her over the edge. It would be hard to find the bullies criminally responsible for her death. [1] Bazelon, Emily. “What Really Happened to Phoebe Prince? Entry 2”. Slate. July 20. 2010. | |
Bullies are often children, most of them in their teens. However, they are at an age where they do know right from wrong and can, therefore, be held accountable for their actions. Neither their young age nor their own suffering can justify bearing responsibility for someone else’s death. Most criminal justice systems recognize that children are liable for their behaviour, by allowing children as young as 10, in the UK for example, to be charged with criminal offences. Their age and personal situation can, nevertheless, be taken into account in deciding what punishment they should receive (prison, community service, a fine, etc.). And there is no reason why rehabilitation and education cannot be part, or even the focus, of that punishment. | |
Individuals should only be held responsible for the consequences of their own actions In any free and democratic society, criminal law should only hold people accountable for the things they do, not for the actions of others. We are all autonomous, moral agents who make decisions and have to live with their consequences and the consequences of our actions. While it might be justified to punish bullies for their bullying behavior, if it breaks the law, we cannot hold them accountable for another person’s decision to commit suicide. | |
Prosecutions of bullies responsible for suicides, and improved safety in schools are not mutually exclusive goals. Programmes need to be set up that stop bullying early on, give victims support, and people to turn to when they are in need. Schools and their administrators can and should also be held accountable to their boards, and the community. But in those cases where tragedies still happen in spite of such measures, the culprits should be held to account. | |
We criminalize behaviour when it is truly harmful. Especially when it is so harmful that it leads to someone losing her life. Eye rolling and gossip are not harmful enough to be criminal offences. Nor would they be under this law. What would become a criminal offence would be the sustained and prolonged torment of another person to the point of pushing her to committing suicide, whatever forms that torment takes, whether it’s gay slurs, or physical threats and insults. It has also long been established that there are limits to the freedom of speech or expression we enjoy, if that can result in the direct harm of others. For example, we don’t allow people to incite violence against others. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.