title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
Market mechanisms are inappropriate for the exchange of some goods, such as children, medically needed bodily substances or organs, and sex. These are precious goods, and we should not allow citizens to alienate these goods for payment. Instead, the terms of alienation should protect the critical interests of all invol... | |
Markets in sexual services can serve legitimate needs While many societies have attempted to restrict sex to marriage, few (if any) have succeeded. In contemporary, secular liberal societies, adults are no longer punished for pursuing sex outside of marriage. Many adults find non-marital sex satisfying, healthy, and f... | |
No person would sell sex unless they were desperate. To have sex with someone for reasons other than sexual attraction, desire, and affection is repulsive to any sane and mentally competent adult. People who sell sex are not exercising sexual autonomy, but are giving up their right to sexual autonomy in order to suppo... | |
Legalization would free up resources that could be devoted to eliminating sex trafficking Some markets in sex should be blocked. Markets that involve child labor, forced labor or sex, and forced migration and detention, should be stopped and those who organize and profit from such markets should be prosecuted. As with... | |
Prohibition does more harm than good Criminalizing the acts of selling and buying sexual services does not protect those who sell or buy such services, but rather pushes these activities underground. While market exchanges of sexual services involve some risk-taking, the risks are increased and compounded when such ma... | |
The fact that prohibition cannot prevent prostitution is not an argument against prohibition. We have laws prohibiting murder, and yet murders happen. Our laws deter some murders and they express our society’s moral outrage regarding murder. Similarly, laws prohibiting prostitution deter some prostitution and express ... | |
While some sex market transactions are more consensual than others, all sex markets treat people like objects to be used and exploited by others. Sex should not be turned into work or a business from which some people profit, even when the labor is allegedly voluntary. Moreover, it is not evident that the proliferatio... | |
Legalizing prostitution would unleash forces that exploit vulnerable women and men for profit. People with the means to buy sexual access to others would be able to exploit those who are poor, young, or inexperienced. By legalizing prostitution, society endorses impersonal and promiscuous sexual relations that damage i... | |
Markets in sexual services can respect sexual autonomy Sexual autonomy means being able to control when, where, and with whom one has sexual relations. It also means that, at any moment, one may withdraw from a sexual relationship or encounter. Spouses, lovers, and also strangers have the right to sexual autonomy. If... | |
Legalization has benefits for society Removing criminal penalties from the sale or purchase of sexual services, and regulating sex markets so that they protect participants and non-involved third parties, would be socially beneficial. In particular, sex enterprises and businesses could be made safer for workers, clien... | |
In market sexual transactions, each party pursues the satisfaction of her/his desires. The service provider is typically pursuing her desire for income, while the client is typically pursuing his desire for sensual enjoyment and intimate companionship. As long as each party respects the terms of the exchange, they are ... | |
Sex exchanged for money may not have the same value and meaning as sex exchanged as a gift among lovers. Yet, it does not follow from this that paid sex is without value. The value of paid sex is clearly subjective, and may be derived from its ability to provide sensual pleasure, sex education, and relief from stress, ... | |
Markets in sexual services undermine the values of commitment and loyalty Sexual relationships involve crossing ordinary social boundaries that exist between people, and exposing aspects of ourselves that normally remain private. This aspect of sexual relationships renders the parties vulnerable emotionally and social... | |
Markets in sex would corrupt non-market sexual relations, turning women and girls into commodities Markets in sex are shaped by values that differ from non-market sexual relationships. Market sexual transactions are not structured by the ideals of fidelity and exclusivity between social intimates, but rather by the en... | |
Moral sex requires more than informed consent, and society should uphold moral values Moral sex requires treating others not merely as a means to our own ends, but as beings with ends of their own. This means that we are morally required to consider the needs of our sexual partners and not only our own selfish desires... | |
Prohibition prevents harm by substantially curtailing markets in sex The good of sex when offered as a gift is not the same good when it is bartered. Taking or offering money cheapens and deforms the good of sexual intimacy, which when shared with many on the open market diminishes its value. Moreover, while the benef... | |
Consumers can access the healing capacities of health care providers without coming to regard the people who provide health care as replaceable market goods rather than unique human subjects. Consumers can access the cooking talents of chefs without coming to regard the people who provide good food as replaceable goods... | |
People who engage in market sexual relationships and other forms of casual sex can treat their partners with dignity and respect. This involves respecting the boundaries that sexual partners communicate to each other, regarding what parts of their lives and themselves they are willing to share. With different sexual pa... | |
The overriding objective of the justice system is to ensure that the innocent go free, not that the guilty are punished, and the system should be orientated around that objective. Ex post-facto confessions do not make someone ‘clearly guilty’ as false confessions can arise for a number of reasons, from boasting to an ... | |
Abolishment of double jeopardy would ensure the guilty do not escape punishment The problem with the 'double jeopardy' rule is that people who are clearly guilty - because new evidence has emerged, because they've confessed - are not being punished for crimes they have committed. We believe that guilty people should b... | |
Such restrictions on double jeopardy would not be effective in practice, for they attempt to put a value on the relative importance of crimes without using either the prospect of re-offending or the impact on victims. As QC Geoffrey Robertson noted in response to the Law Commission's finding, it is irrational to confin... | |
The rules and laws that protect the accused will remain at retrial All the rules and laws that protect the accused at the first trial will be in place at a second - it's not as if the rule of law suddenly disappears. The presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, the right to a fair hearing and competent... | |
Juries will know this is a retrial – because evidence will have to be ‘read’ from the first trial where witnesses have died, because notes from ‘last time’ will be available to advocates and the accused, because the legal procedure of the last trial will be subject to discussion in this one. If a jury knows a case has ... | |
Faith in the justice system is derived from it being been to be fair and even-handed. It is not merely faith on the part of victims that offenders will be found guilty, but faith on the part of innocent defendant that they will be found innocent. The double jeopardy rule reinforces faith in the justice system because ... | |
Double jeopardy could be abolished by state legislatures for all serious crimes whereby fresh, compelling evidence emerges The scrapping of the double jeopardy would be practicable if it was permitted for serious crimes, like murder and rape, and only when fresh, compelling evidence of guilt emerges that calls into qu... | |
Abolishment of the rule would restore faith in the justice system When we see people still unpunished for offences in society they've clearly committed, it damages our faith in the justice system. Our bargain with the state entails the state's right to judge the individual because the state protects the individual: if... | |
Vast improvements in the technology of crime-solving have occurred in recent times to ensure that defendants brought to trial are done so appropriately. DNA testing, voice identification technology, facial mapping techniques that reveal faces beneath masks - all can now solve cases and show guilt in individuals whose e... | |
The rule of law, by its very nature, serves the cause of justice. In doing so, it is often overturned, but only in order to ensure that justice is delivered and offenders punished. Protection from the state therefore is a principle that is relinquished by those who commit crimes; it is the protection of the state from ... | |
Double jeopardy protects the acquitted from the threat of constant harassment by the state We’re not just protecting ‘evil people’. The double jeopardy rule protects everyone from the danger of constant harassment from the state. The opposition would rather see a guilty man occasionally go free than see the resources ... | |
Double jeopardy ensures defendants are not brought to trial on weak grounds The implications of this should be looked at carefully. This would grant police and the prosecution the right to prosecute an individual if the evidence against them can be ‘reanalysed.’ Surely almost all cases could see such ‘improvement in i... | |
The rule of law means less if it is being constantly overturned Respect for the law will diminish if criminal verdicts exist in a perpetual state of uncertainty. We need to be protected from the state in other ways, too - from the vindictive or obsessed policeman that will pursue a case because he 'knows' the accused,... | |
The people who are protected by this rule are the guilty who are wrongly declared innocent; the murderer whose voice couldn’t be identified on the tape; the rapist who couldn’t be identified because DNA testing wasn’t sufficiently developed at the time; the robber who couldn’t be identified because facial mapping techn... | |
While they undermine the court, they are an inevitable quid pro quo of part of diplomatic relations with the US, the last remaining superpower. While impunity is not ideal, it is better than not signing and taking part in international criminal justice at all. Creating BIAs does not mean that the countries in question ... | |
The rationale for the BIAs is flawed The Bilateral Immunity Agreements that these states have entered in to undermine the court that these states have signed up to. BIAs invalidate the intention for the ICC that any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court (which only triggers when an individual is a cit... | |
The United States is not under any form of responsibility to other states to provide them with military and other aid. Aid has always been provided with strings attached to those whose receipt of aid is considered beneficial. It is within the purview of the US to decide who they give aid to, based on their own prioriti... | |
The BIAs are at best bad faith compliance, and worst a blatant violation of the Rome Statute The European states have signed and ratified the ICC Statute and should honour it, to do otherwise makes a mockery of the ICC which those states supported throughout its genesis and at least claim to continue to support. Arti... | |
The text of the Rome Statute is clear. Article 98(2) is unspecific as to the variety of international agreements that it covers, unlike the narrower Article 98(1) covering diplomatic immunity. Article 98 Agreements are a tool that is a legitimate method of the US ensuring that US citizens are not subject to trial and ... | |
The BIAs were only granted following bully tactics from the United States The United States has been accused of using bullying tactics in the pursuit of gaining Article 98 Agreements by, amongst others, Human Rights Watch [1] . This has included significant reductions in non-military, development aid, including to co... | |
Theoretical impunity is still impunity. The concept that any entity should be given special treatment by the law runs contrary to principles of the rule of law. If such immunity is not going to be needed then there is very little reason for the agreements in the first place and there should be little objection to getti... | |
The Rome Statute itself does not bind any state to be put on trial – it binds individuals. Individuals violating the criminal law of a state (the Rome Statute also integrating the international criminal law in to the national criminal law) have always been subject to trial and punishment by that state, barring cases of... | |
Withdrawal from Article 98 agreements would hamper relations with the US Many of the states in Europe that have signed up to BIA’s are applicant to NATO which leaves them in a difficult position when it comes to withdrawing from such a treaty. While NATO members are exempt from the punitive provisions aimed at states ... | |
Article 98 Agreements are unlikely to be needed The prospect of an Article 98 Agreement actually being relied on is slim. It would require the International Criminal Court to prosecute an American for a crime against humanity, or genocide, that takes place in ICC member state. There is next to no chance of the UN Secu... | |
Article 98 Agreements are a crucial tool in maintaining American national sovereignty As a key part of its national sovereignty, the US should not be required to have its citizens subject to the ICC if it does not ratify the treaty itself of its own choice. It is an accepted principle, as enshrined in Article 34 of th... | |
The US is not focusing on encouraging existing NATO members to withdraw from the ICC. Existing NATO members are not subject to the aid-cutting provisions of US law (before and after the Presidential waiver was created), neither are major non-NATO allies – indeed, all EU member states in NATO are ICC members, with the e... | |
The police should not be reacting in such a way that they exacerbate those problems. By routinely arming its police officers, the state effectively legitimizes the weapon as a symbol of authority. Whether or not this is pragmatic, it is an implied affirmation of the criminal sub-culture, which will accordingly be stren... | |
The police should be equipped to react to contemporary social problems The old-fashioned notions of friendly neighborhood unarmed policing reflect the aspirations of a different age. As armed violence has increased sharply in parts of the developed world, the police need to redefine their role so that it is a more app... | |
When a police officer carries a weapon, she faces the risk of having that weapon turned on her by a criminal. It is also more obvious to a criminal that they need to shoot first against an armed officer whereas against an unarmed one they may be more open to listening and less likely to try and pre-empt being shot. So ... | |
Arming the police is a necessary step Police officers are routinely armed already in a variety of situations. This is a small step, as police officers are routinely armed already in a variety of situations, e.g. at airports and when providing security for political leaders or institutions. As mentioned earlier armed p... | |
An armed police force will deter criminal behaviour Most countries in Europe and North America have armed police forces, in part to deter criminal acts, but also to protect officers working in an armed or dangerous environment’ . Armed criminals operate in at least some areas of virtually every jurisdiction. Given thi... | |
Arming the police can lead to a spiral of violence. In places where the police are not routinely armed, a portion of criminals will not arm themselves (since, for example, armed robbery often carries a higher sentence than robbery). Once the police are armed, criminals who do not match their capability operate under a ... | |
The large majority of policewomen and men go through their whole career without handling firearms. The numbers in the firearms authorised officers are low, only 6780 in 2007-8 out of more than 100,000 police, [1] and even these have been criticised by SAS officers who stated “When the tension starts to rise and the adr... | |
Arming police would negatively impact the relationship between the police and the community – this is especially so in relation to some communities which feel that they bear the brunt of heavy, enforcement-led policing (for example young men in urban areas, ethnic minority groups). [1] Arming the police might delegitim... | |
Policing is a dangerous job. Police officers should be allowed to arm themselves There is a global increase in gun ownership, even in countries which did not traditionally think of themselves as having a large criminal gun culture. Presently 1.8 million legally held guns are accounted for in the UK. [1] This increases... | |
Arming the police makes communities feel safer Armed police reassure law-abiding citizens at a time when gun-related crime is increasing in most European countries and parts of North America. In the UK 28 gun crimes are committed every day. [1] Much public opinion holds that something must be done to tackle this. [2] ... | |
Violence is already escalating and we need a robust response. Many communities are vulnerable to postcode gangs comprised of young people aged 14 and upwards who are armed and dangerous and making their areas unsafe to live in. Only a robust and proactive response from the police such as patrolling such territories wit... | |
The police themselves are calling for more routine arming in the United Kingdom, through both the unions that represent rank and file policemen, and the bodies which speak for the senior officers. If we want them to uphold law and order, we should trust the police's judgement about the tools they need to carry out thei... | |
When the police are armed, mistakes will lead to innocent people getting shot Even with the special selection measures and intensive training given to firearms officers, mistakes sometimes occur, and innocent people are shot. This can happen either by mistake because the armed officers are acting on inaccurate informa... | |
Arming the police does not deal with the causes underlying violence The real issues that cause crime usually lie in societal issues and a lack of a proper rehabilitation effort in the justice system. The root problems are therefore not being solved by arming the police. This policy only masks the problems societies fa... | |
Arming the police will cause an escalation in criminal violence The British Crime Survey maintains that gun crime is very rare throughout the UK. The reason communities are so afraid is that the over-zealous media continually hype up individual incidences of gun crime in order to attract more readers. The statistics s... | |
Recruitment will be adversely affected if the police are armed The police are split on this issue at all levels, so it would be wrong to listen only to the loudest voices. The police should also be held firmly under civilian control. Policy areas such as the carrying of firearms or stop-and-search procedure should be ... | |
Arming police is not mutually exclusive with other policies that could deal with the whole spectrum of crime-related issues. This debate is not suggesting that other issues related to crime will not be dealt with. Rather that in order to facilitate a reduction in crime the criminal justice system will be served by poli... | |
Armed police already exist in a number of situations and a rise in mistaken shootings that the opposition fear is not evident in these areas. | |
Treatment programs can address the problems of those who are addicted, and many casinos offer “Self-Exclusion Programs”, where individuals can effectively “ban” themselves from casinos. This could be the initiative of either the gambler or their family or friends. | |
Gambling leads to the disintegration of families Gambling can have a devastating effect on families. The most obvious effect is financial as one partner uses all their money on gambling the other needs to support the whole family or the gambler may even gamble away joint savings. Psychologically there is a relationshi... | |
Gambling is associated with other forms of addiction and harmful behaviour Gambling makes people concentrate of winning money. Religious leaders of all denominations see gambling as eroding family values1 because it implies that material goods should be valued above other things like friendships and families. It also ... | |
Internet gambling is in fact less dangerous than normal gambling. It is free from the pressures to gamble that casinos can create through free food and entertainment, glitzy surroundings and peer pressure. And as children can’t get credit cards, they should not be able to gamble online anyway. Stolen credit cards can b... | |
Gambling affects poor people disproportionately Poor people are more likely to gamble, in the hope of getting rich. In 1999, the National Gambling Impact Commission in the United States found that 80 percent of gambling revenue came from lower-income households1. It is immoral for the state or charities to raise money... | |
Gambling is addictive and psychologically harmful Gambling can become a psychologically addictive behavior in some people. According to the Emotional Neuroscience Centre in Massachusetts, “Monetary reward in a gambling-like experiment produces brain activation very similar to that observed in a cocaine addict receivin... | |
Unlike drugs, gambling is not physically or metabolically addictive. Most gamblers are not addicts, simply ordinary people who enjoy the excitement of a bet on a sporting event or card game. Only a small percentage of gamblers have an addiction. Many more get enjoyment from gambling without problems. The risks of gambl... | |
Gambling effects every person in the same way, everyone have the free will to decide to gamble and each may win or lose despite of their wealth or position in society, thus gambling cannot affect poor people to a greater extent. Gambling is only regressive because more poor people choose to gamble. Gambling does also ... | |
There is no evidence that gambling makes people not care about others. People do not gamble because they expect to win lots of money. Most gamble as a form of entertainment. Also, there are many areas of life where success is not the result of merit or hard work. Someone born to well-off parents may get many advantages... | |
People committing crimes should be prosecuted. The existence of criminals does not make nearby businesses (including casinos) immoral. It is perverse to punish people who just want to gamble (and not take drugs or use prostitutes) by taking away their chance to do so. | |
Online gambling has increased the incidence of gambling addiction Someone can become addicted very easily – they don’t even need to leave their home, and online gambling sites are available at all hours. This also means that they are gambling in private. They may therefore be less reluctant to wager very large sums th... | |
Casinos are often used to mask criminal activity Casinos are often associated with crime, particularly organized crime. When it comes to local crimes a study has found that only larceny(theft) liquor violations increased significantly with a small increase in prostitution.1 But comparing statistics probably does not s... | |
The economic benefits of casinos are exaggerated.1 They generally only create low-paid jobs for local people – the casino companies usually bring in managers from elsewhere. The problems associated with casinos (e.g. crime, gambling addiction) outweigh the economic benefits. In any case, an immoral industry is not just... | |
Gambling is a harmful activity and could have harmful effects on not only to individuals but also on their friends and family. Gamblers may win money from time to time, but in the long run, the house always wins. Why should governments allow an activity that helps their citizens lose the money they have worked so hard ... | |
It is impossible to effectively ban gambling When gambling has been banned, people have just found a way round the ban. They use internet sites based in other countries. A good example being the Ukraine, who in May 2009 made gambling illegal, this included internet gambling. By July 2009, over 500 illegal gambling ope... | |
Many activities directly comparable to gambling are already legal and regulated What is the difference between gambling and playing the stock market? In each case people are putting money at risk in the hope of a particular outcome. Gambling on horse-racing or games involves knowledge and expertise that can improve yo... | |
Casinos create positive economic effects in the communities that host them Casinos can revive entire areas and regions. They create jobs and cause money to be spent on transport infrastructure. The jobs are not just in the casino itself. More jobs are created in hotels and other parts of the tourism industry. In an ar... | |
Gambling is simply a leisure pursuit People have free will and should be allowed to spend their money on which ever leisure pursuits they choose. Gamblers know that, overall, they are likely to lose money. They gamble because it is a leisure pursuit that they enjoy. There is nothing irrational about this. Some people... | |
Gambling is not impossible to ban, although it will not be easy such examples of states that have banned it show that it is possible and although illegal activity may arise from the ban this can also be stopped by though rules. If government did not ban activities where some may find a way around it, nothing would be b... | |
This would be an argument in favour of preventing countries from developing any deterrent at any time, because it would make them easier to invade. It presumes, firstly, that it would be a good thing for the United States to be able to invade countries that do things it does not like at will, and secondly that it assum... | |
The possession of nuclear weapons by some states drives others to militarize, creating arms races. er, the government possesses nuclear weapons it can threaten to use them, and thereby deter a counter-invasion or prevent the International community from being able to intervene to depose it. This can be seen in the re... | |
[Iran specific] Others, particularly Israel, would act if the United States did not A failure of the United States to act would motivate Israel to do so. [1] Israel is under much more pressure to act as it would be the most affected by Iran going nuclear. The result would be catastrophic, as Iran would be able to port... | |
Preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists is a serious concern, but terrorists tend to be stronger in weak states than strong ones. That is one reason why Pakistan has figured so prominently in weapons sales in the past. Invading a country like Iran would be more likely to destabilize things... | |
[Iran specific] Iran has threatened to destroy Israel Iran has explicitly threatened to destroy Israel, President Ahmadinejad described Israel as a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the face of the earth". [1] Such a prospect would be disastrous, not just in its initial consequences, but for the entire regi... | |
The United States has an obligation to protect international stability due to its unique military strength. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is one of the lynchpins on which the current Western-led international political and diplomatic order is dependent.1,2 Just as any normal legal system requires laws that are ... | |
The reality is that it makes far more sense for the United States to legitimatise actions it might take to prevent a state like Iran from developing nuclear by making reference to the uses that might find for a nuclear device, rather than the fact that they are have breached the terms of highly tenuous body of law. Wh... | |
Ahmadinejad’s words were mistranslated, [1] and Iran’s position has been clarified by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has repeated Khomeini’s exhortation that Islam prohibits the use of nuclear weapons. [2] On the Presidential side, Esfandiar Mashaei, formerly Vice President in Ahmadinejad’s first term and now Presid... | |
Forcing Israel to act would remove the United States from direct responsibility for the consequences, and allow the US to strategically “condemn” Israel’s actions. Iran and Israel already have a terrible relationship, so a lot of the harms here are already sunk costs. | |
This is in fact a good thing. Nuclear weapons are a great equalizer between large and small countries. [1] One of the great problems of history for tiny nations like Georgia or the Baltic states is that they have consistently been at the mercy of Russia. Nuclear weapons will allow them to fight the Russians on an equal... | |
Nuclear weapons can fall into the wrong hands. Even if states do not use nuclear weapons themselves, or attempt to threaten their neighbours, they can sell their technology to other, less savoury states and individuals. This was a particular problem with Pakistan. The former head of the Pakistani nuclear program, AQ ... | |
The development of nuclear weapons creates a self-perpetuating cycle of proliferation among other states. The development of nuclear weapons encourages other countries to develop them as well. Rationally governed states without a nuclear deterrent are unlikely to allow themselves to be placed in a position where a nuc... | |
Not all states are inherently rational, either by our standards or generally. North Korea is a xenophobic state based on the belief that they are racially and ideologically superior to all other states. [1] A government that does not consider its enemies fully human in its official propaganda is unlikely to blanch at t... | |
Regardless of its origins, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of an international system that has prevented the rapid proliferation of Nuclear weapons for nearly half a century. The dangers of Nuclear weapons, especially in the wrong hands, mean that the ownership of nuclear weapons is an issue wh... | |
No country has an inherent right to invade or use aggression against another. Given the moral bankruptcy of the NPT, and existing views of the United States in much of the developing world, [1] any move by the United States to prevent other nations from developing nuclear weapons by force will be seen for what it is: ... | |
[Iran specific] Iran has not invaded any other country in three and a half centuries; the same cannot be said for US allies including Israel, Pakistan, etc. For all the censure Iran has faced as a rogue state, it has not, in fact, invaded another country for more than three centuries and despite internal aggression ag... | |
The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction makes war less likely. States are fundamentally rational, and as such, nuclear proliferation has generally made war less likely, by promulgating the principle of mutually assured destruction (MAD). States go to war with other states when they think they can win the confli... | |
Existing international treaties that grant nuclear weapons to the US and other countries no longer reflect the changing global balance of power. The Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty is inherently unfair, in that it prevents countries that did not have nuclear weapons as of 1964 from developing them, but makes no effo... | |
What is not at issue is whether Iran will invade anyone. No one expects that, at least not immediately. Rather, the harm of Iranian possession of nuclear weapons is that they will provide Iran with immunity from retaliation which will encourage it to escalate its Cold War against Saudi Arabia in the Gulf, and increase ... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.